Loading...
1998-08-11II ,I, ,il ~11 ~ & i,, I, , AGENDA MOUND CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, AUGUST 11, 1998, 7:30 PM MOUND CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS *Consent Agenda: All items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by the Council and will be enacted by a roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Councilmember or Citizen so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered in normal sequence. 1. OPEN MEETING - PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. APPROVE AGENDA. At this time items can be added to the Agenda that are not listed and/or items can be removed from the Consent Agenda and voted upon after the Consent Agenda has been approved. 3. *CONSENT AGENDA. *A. APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE JULY 28, 1998, REGULAR MEETING .............................. 3022-3035 *B. APPROVAL OF SIGN PERMIT REQUEST, OUR LADY OF THE LAKE, INCREDIBLE FESTIVAL .................... 3036-3037 *C. APPROVAL OF LICENSES FOR OUR LADY OF THE LAKE INCREDIBLE FESTIVAL - PUBLIC DANCE PERMIT & TEMPORARY 3.2 BEER PERMIT ........................ 3038 *D. APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO SECTION 220, MOUND CITY CODE RELATED TO EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS3039-3044 *E. SET SPECIAL MEETING FOR TUESDAY, AUGUST 18, 1998, 7:00 P.M., BEFORE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING, TO ENTER INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR PURPOSES OF LABOR RELATIONS STRATEGIES AND ISSUES. FOLLOWING EXECUTIVE SESSION, COUNCIL WOULD RETURN REPORT ON THE EXECUTIVE SESSION AND THEN ADJOURN THE SPECIAL MEETING AND MOVE INTO THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING. *F. PAYMENT OF BILLS ............................... 3045-3059 PUBLIC HEARING: CASE 98-46: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, LIGHT STANDARDS & MONOPOLE AT 5600 LYNWOOD BLVD., WESTONKA SCHOOL DISTRICT 277/ US WEST WIRELESS, UNPLATTED 14 117 24, PID 14-117-24 41 0011 .............. 3060-3143 3020 CASE 98-45: VARIANCE, HEIGHT CONSTRAINT, WESTONKA SCHOOL DISTRICT 277/US WEST WIRELESS, 5600 LYNWOOD BLVD., UNPLAT'FED 14 117 24, PID//14-117-24 41 0011 ............. 3060-3143 C 10. 11. 12. 13. A. B. C. Do Eo Fo PUBLIC HEARING: PROPOSED PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT - NORWOOD LANE ................................. 3044-3162 BID AWARD: NORWOOD LANE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT. (TO BE HANDED OUT TUESDAY EVENING. COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT. APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO SECTION 320, MOUND CITY CODE RELATING TO ENCROACHMENTS ON LAKESHORE PUBLIC COMMONS3163-3167 BID AWARD: AUDITOR'S ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT ............ 3168 (THERE WILL BE AN ADDITIONAL HANDOUT TUESDAY EVENING) SETON BLUFF PROPOSED DOCK SITE ....................... 3169-3174 REQUEST FROM THE CITY OF INDEPENDENCE ON MOUND'S POSITION ON THE UPGRADE OF COUNTY ROAD 110 IN MINNETRISTA AND INDEPENDENCE .................................. 3175-3176 INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS: Department Head Monthly Reports for July 1998 ................... 3177-3206 LMCD Mailings ....................................... 3207-3209 Notice from Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) regarding public information and Public Hearing Dates for Proposed Rule B Revision .......... 3210 Update from Hennepin County on the reconstruction of County Road 15 in Orono ............................................... 3211 Invitation from Hennepin County to the dedication and open house at Hennepin County's new Public Works Facility at 1600 Prairie Drive, Medina, MN., Friday, August 14, 1998 ............................ 3212 REMINDER: Committee of the Whole Meeting, Tuesday, August 18, 1998, 7:30 p.m., City Hall or following the Special Meeting of the City Council to be held at 7:00 p.m. REMINDER: Next meeting of the WCCB is scheduled for Thursday, September 24, 1998, 7:00 p.m., Mound City Hail. 3021 MINUTES - MOUND CI~¥ COUNCIL- ~]UL¥ 28, 1998 The City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on Tuesday, July 28, 1998, at 7:30 PM, in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City. Those present were: Mayor Bob Polston, Councilmembers Liz Jensen, Mark Hanus, and Leah Weycker. Councilmember Andrea Ahrens was absent and excused. Also in attendance were: City Manager Edward J. Shuld¢, Jr., City Attorney John Dean, City Clerk Fran Clark, City Engineer John Cameron, Building Official John Sutherland, and the following interested citizens: Greg Knutson, Be. cB Cherne, Steve Bchnke, Stephen Can, Thomas Stokes, Frank Weiland, Linda & John Verkennes, Michael Rizzi, Don Bonnicksen, and Dave Moore. The Mayor OlX~ned the meeting and welcomed the people in attendance. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. The Mayor asked for a moment of silence for the two slain police officers in Washington, D.C. *Consent Agenda_: All items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by the Council and will be enacted by a roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Councilmember or Citizen so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered in normal sequence. APPROVE AGENDA. At this time items can be added to the Agenda that are not listed and/or items can be removed ~rom the Consent Agenda and voted upon ajqer the Consent Agenda has been approved. The City Manager explained that Item #H on the Consent Agenda, (Set Public Hearing for Zoning Amendment to Modify the B-1 Zoning District to allow TV & Radio Stations Without Towers by Conditional Use Permit. Suggested Date · August 11, 1998), should be removed from the Agenda at the request of the applicant. Councilmember Jcnsen asked that Cases #98-39 and //98-42 be removed from the Consent Agenda. *CONSENT AGENDA MOTION by Hanus, seconded by Jensen to approve the Consent Agenda as amended above. A roll call vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. '1.0 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - JULY 28, 1998 APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE ,JULY 14, 1998 REGULAR MEETING MOTION Hanus, Jensen, unanimously. *1.1 CASE 98-40: MINOR SUBDIVISION, RELOCATION OF PROPERTY LINEj STEPHEN 7 EI.IZABETH ANN FARLEY KAKOS, 6381 MAPLE RD., LOTS 1 & 2~ BLOCK 4, MOUND TERRACE, PID #14-117-24 32 0024 & 14-117-24 32 0025. RESOLUTION g98-77 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A MINOR SUBDIVISION, RELOCATION OF PROPERTY LINE, STEPHEN 7 ELIZABETH ANN FARLEY KAKOS, 6381 MAPLE RD., LOTS I & 2, BLOCK 4, MOUND TERRACE, PID #14-117-24 32 0024 & 14-117-24 32 0025, P & Z CASE//98-40 Hanus, Jensen, unanimously. *1.2 CASE 98-44: VARIANCE EXTENSION FRONT YARD SETBACK SIDE YARD .SETBACK, TO CONSTRUCT A DECK. JIM & SUE O'HEARN, 178c_ .SHOREWOOD LANE, LOT 8 & P/7 & 9, BLOCK 3, SHADYWOOD POINT, PID// .1.3-117-24 11 0005 RESOLUTION #98-78 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A ONE (1) YEAR EXTENSION OF A VARIANCE ORIGINALLY APPROVED BY RE~OLUTION $97-58 FOR FRONT YARD SETBACK, SIDE YARD SETBACK, TO CONSTRUCT A DECK, JIM & SUE O'HEARN, 1786 SHOREWOOD LANE, LOT 8 & P/7 & 9, BLOCK 3, SHADYWOOD POINT, PID# 13-117-24 11 0005, P & Z CASE//98-44 Hanus, Jensen, unanimously. *1.3 CASE 98-43: VARIANCE, BLUFF LINE SETBACK AT 6407 BAYRIDGE ROAD TO CONSTRUCT A NEW HOME, FRED JOHNSON, 3510 TUXEDO BLVD., LOr~ 5. BLOCK 3, THE BLUFFS, PID# 22-117-24 44 0012. MOUND CITY COUNCIl, MINUTES- JULY 28, 1998 RESOLUTION g98-79 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A BLUFF LINE SETBACK VARIANCE AT 6407 BAYRIDGE ROAD, TO CONSTRUCT A NEW HOME, FRED JOHNSON, 3510 TUXEDO BLVD., LOT 5, BLOCK 3, THE BLUFFS, PID# 22-117-24 44 0012, P & Z CASE//98-43. Hanus, Jensen, unanimously. · 1.4 CASE 98-46: SET PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, LIGHT STANDARDS AND MONOPOLE AT 5600 LYNWOOD BLVD., WESTONKA SCHOOL DISTRICT #277/US WEST WIRELESS, UNPLATTED 14 117 24 PID# 14-117-24 41 0011. SUGGESTED DATE: AUGUST 11, 1998. MOTION to set August 11, 1998, for a Public Hearing to consider a Conditional Use Permit, Light Standards and Monopole at 5600 Lynwood Blvd., Westonka School District #277/U.S. West Wireless, Unplatted 14-117-24, PID #14-117-24 41 0011, P & Z Case #98-46. Hanus, Jensen, unanimously. '1.5 PAYMENT OF BILLS. MOTION Hanus, Jensen, unanimously. '1.6 CASE 98-39: VARIANCE, FRONT YARD SETBACK, TO CONSTRUCT AN ADDITION, DON & TERRI BONNICKSEN, 2156 CENTERVIEW LANE, LOTS 8 & 31, BLOCK 7, ABRAHAM LINCOLN ADDITION, LAKESIDE PARK, PID# 13-117-24 31 0052. The Building Official stated he has discussed this item with Councilmember Jensen. The proposed resolution did not address the issue of hardcover because since the original variance was granted, the City has adopted hardcover regulations. This should now be covered in this resolution. He suggested that the hardcover be calculated and if a variance to hardcover is needed, it could be included in the final resolution before it is released to the applicant. The Council agreed. MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - JULY 28, 1998 Jensen moved and Hanus seconded the following resolution which will be corrected: RESOLUTION//98-80 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO RECOGNIZE A NONCONFORMING FRONT YARD SETBACK TO THE PRINCIPAL DWELLING TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A DETACHED GARAGE AND AN ADDITION TO THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE, AT 2156 CENTERVIEW LANE, LOTS 8 & 31, BLOCK 7, ABRAHAM LINCOLN ADDITION TO LAKESIDE PARK, PID # 13-117-24 31 0052, P & Z CASE//98-39 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. '1.7 CASE 98-42: VARIANCE, SIDE YARD SETBACK, TO ADD AN ADDITION MICHAEL & SONJA SCHUI.Z, 4878 EDGEWATER DRIVE, LOT 14, SUB LOTS 1 & 32 RAVENSWOOD, PID# 13-117-24 41 0043. Councilmember Jensen explained that in the Planning Commission Minutes there was discussion about showing elevations but it says nothing about showing elevations in the proposed resolution. She also questioned how the hard cover was calculated on this Case. The Building Official pointed out that there is a correction to be made in the second Whereas as follows: "WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-lA Single Family Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires a minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet, 40 feet of lot frontage, front yard setback of ~ 20 feet, and side yard setbacks are 6 feet for lot of record and Lakeside setback of 50 feet; and," The Building Official also stated that Item 1.A. under the Now, Therefore Be it Resolved could be changed to read reads as follows: "The applicant provide a complete grading and drainage plan prior to issuance of a building permit as required by the ~ City Engineer." The Building Official stated he and the City Engineer will do a site visit and check the elevations. Councilmember Jensen asked about the hardcover calculations which show a detached building. The Building Official stated that there is no detached building and he did not know where that figure came from. He stated it may be the driveway and was just put in the wrong space. He will check on this with the Planner and make sure the hardcover calculations are correct. The Council agreed.. 4 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- JULY 28, 1998 Jensen moved and Weycker seconded the following corrected resolution: RESOLUTION//98-81 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCE IN ORDER TO ALLOW FOR A CONSTRUCTION OF LIVING SPACE AND GARAGE ADDITIONS TO THE FRONT OF THE DWELLING, AT 4878 EDGEWATER DRIVE, LOT 14, SUBDIVISION OF LOTS 1 & 32 SKARP & LINDQUISTS RAVENSWOOD, PID 13-11%24 41 0043, P & Z CASE # 98-42 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.8 CASE 98-38: VARIANCE, NONCONFORMING USE AT 2754 CARDIFF LANE, JACK COOK, 4452 DENBIGH ROAD, LOT 94, PHELP'S ISLAND PARK 1sr DIV., PID# 19-117-23 24 0029. COMMISSION HAS RECOMMENDED DENIAL). (PLANNING The Building Official explained that the applicant has requested a variance to allow a one car garage to remain on a lot without a principal use. He stated that Section 350:435 of the Code states the following: "No accessory building or structure constructed on any residential lot prior to the time of construction of the principal building to which it is accessory. The only way an accessory building could be located on a residential lot is if it were combined with an adjacent property." This is not possible because the applicant's lot with his home is across the street, not adjacent to the lot where the garage is located. Staff and the Planning Commission recommended denial. The Building Official stated that the applicant has submitted a letter requesting a 4 year stay (allowing the garage to remain on this lot) to enable him to acquire enough money to build a home on this lot. Councilmember Hanus stated that this case involves his neighbor and at the Planning Commission he stepped down because it is his neighbor. He further stated that because the applicant has asked for a change in the plan, he would not be comfortable voting if the action is to send this back to the Planning Commission to reconsider his change in plan. He stated he would step down if the Council is going to discuss the case itself. The applicant was not present. MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- JULY 28, 1998 MOTION made by Weycker, seconded by Polston to table this item and return it to the Planning Commi~ion to review the revised request. This would then come back to the City Council at the August 24th Meeting. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.9 PRESENTATION BY CITY ENGINEER RE: PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING/ FEASIBILITY REPORT FOR PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, NORWOOD LANE. The City Engineer reviewed the preliminary report on the improvement of Norwood Road. The estimated total cost is $63,600. 5 parcels would be assessed for the improvement. He presented a schedule for the improvement and assessment. The City portion of the assessment would be approximately $5,310.00. The project is feasible. Per lot assessment would be $4,080.00. The developer's proposed assessment would be 51% of the assessment cost for a total of $29,730.00. The Council discussed the zoning being R-1 on the West side of the street and R-2 on the east side. They also discussed deferring assessments for senior citizens. Staff will check on he policy that has been followed in the past. The City Engineer suggested that because there are some questions about Lot 7, Block 3 that the street assessment be levied at this time, but the utility assessment be deferred until or when the lot is developed. The owner of Lots 14-17 was present and stated he would be in favor of this improvement if he would not be assessed for the utilities until the lots are developed. The City Engineer presented the following schedule for this project: SCHEDULE NORWOOD LANE STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS Council Meeting: July 28, 1998 Resolution Ordering Preparation of Report on Improvement and Preparation of Plans. a. Adopted at June 23, 1998 Council meeting. Improvement. a. b. Resolution receiving Preliminary Engineering Report and Calling Hearing on Set public heating for August 11, 1998. Published in The Laker August 1st and 8th. (Must be to the Laker by 10:00 a.m. Wednesday, July 29, 1998.) Mailed notice must be sent by Friday, July 31, 1998. 6 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - JULY 28, 1998 Resolution Approving Plans and Specifications and Ordering Advertisement for Bids. a. Set bid date for August 11, 1998. b. Published in Laker August 1, 1998. (Must be to the Laker by 4:30 p.m. Tuesday, July 28, 1998.) c. Published in Construction Bulletin July 31, 1998. (Must be to Bulletin by 3:00 p.m. on Tuesday, July 28, 1998.) Council Meeting: August 11, 1998 1. Public hearing on improvement. 2. Resolution Declaring Cost to be Assessed and Ordering Preparation of Proposed Assessment. Resolution for Hearing on Proposed Assessment. a. Set public hearing for September 8, 1998. b. Published in Laker on August 22, 1998. (Must be to the Laker by 4:30 p.m. on August 18th*.) c. Mailed notices must be sent on Friday, August 21, 1998+. * Need total amount of proposed assessment for published notice and + Specific amount for individual property in mailed notice Council Meeting: September 8, 1998 1. Public hearing on proposed assessments. 2. Resolution Adopting Assessment. Resolution Accepting Bid and Award Contract. a. This resolution would be adopted only if no written objections are received before or at the public hearing on the proposed assessments. b. If a written objection is filed at or before the public hearing, the person or persons aggrieved must within 30 days appeal to District Court by serving notice upon the mayor or clerk. The notice of appeal must be filed with the clerk of the District Court within ten days after service on the City. The City Engineer stated that if the bids are higher than the cost estimate, he will recommend that the project not be done. Polston moved and Jensen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION//98-82 RF~OLUTION RECEIVING THE REPORT AND CALLING HEARING ON THE NORWOOD LANE IMPROVEMENT 7 3o; g MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- JULY 28, 1998 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.10 APPROVAL OF CONSTRUCTION PLANS AND SETTING OF BID OPENING DATE FOR PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, NORWOOD LANE. SUGGESTED DATE: AUGUST 11, 1998 Jensen moved and Weycker seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION//98-83 RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND ORDERING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR NORWOOD LANE IMPROVMENT PROJECT The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. COMMEN'I~ AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRFSENT. There were none. PUBLIC LAND PERMIT APPLICATIONS, 1.11 GREGORY KNUTSON, 4701 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, The Building Official explained that the Council tabled this item at the last meeting in order to allow Staff time to determine the footage that the light encroaches onto the Commons. He stated it is 12 feet. He stated that the encroachment manual does state that if there is an alternative location on private property, the light should be located there and not on Commons. The applicant was present. Councilmember Hanus stated that the question in his mind is, "Can't this light and outlet be placed on private property on the southwest comer of Knutson's lot right next to the stairway and still be useable?" The Council discussed the placement of the light pole. The Staff recommendation was to allow the light as requested because there were previous permits for the light. The Council asked if there are similar lights on the Commons like this. The Building Official stated there are. MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - JULY 28, 1998 Polston moved and Jensen seconded the following resolution: RFSOLUTION #98-84 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A PUBLIC LANDS MAINTF~ANCE PERMIT FOR GREG KNUTSON AT 4701 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, LOT 1, BLOCK 7, DEVON, DOCK SITE # 42077 Councilmember Hanus stated that he feels we will be seeing more of this type of permit request in the future. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.12 JOHN & LINDA VERKENNES, 4771 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE. The Building Official explained that this is a request for a public lands permit to replace some existing retaining walls. Councilmember Hanus asked if the wall is on public lands? The Building Official stated, yes. Hanus asked if the tree that fell was on the public land? The Building Official stated, yes. The applicant explained that a tree from their property fell on their house and that this tree that fell from the Commons was hanging over their house but not laying on top of the house. He explained that they had a tree service already lined up the next day to remove the trees. The City did remove and pay for the removal of a portion of the tree that fell from Commons. Councilmember Hanus stated that while he is not in favor of spending the Dock Fund for anything that is not necessary but, in that same storm other trees went down on Commons and the City did pay for those trees to be removed and there were repairs to structures, such as stairs that were also paid for by the Dock Fund. The Mayor asked what the status is on the FEMA reimbursement for these storms. The City Manager stated it has been submitted and is close to $100,000. The Feds would pay 75%, the State 15% and the City would be responsible for 10%. The Mayor suggested that since this was a public tree that fell from public property and if there is no insurance reimbursement to Mr. & Mrs. Verkennes, he would like to see them paid for the removal of this tree. This could either happen through FEM^ or the City's insurance company. The Building Official stated that he is recommending approval of the public lands permit with the following conditions: A revised plan be submitted as required by the Building Official that is suitable for review. The applicant needs to provide a survey identifying the location of the utility easement between the home and the shoreline. 9 3030 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - JULY 28, 1998 e In the event the project is not completed within one year of the date of approval of the resolution, the abutting dock permit will not be issued until compliance is achieved as required by the Building Official. The Council discussed who should be responsible for paying for the retaining wall since it is on public property and is owned by the public. The Building Official stated that this was discussed and the applicant came in and was willing to pay for it. The Mayor felt that since the City can be reimbursed through FEMA for this damaged retaining wall because it is on public property, that the City should pay for the repair of the retaining wall. The City Clerk explained that a permit was issued back in 1986 to the previous owner to install this retaining wall, and was not put in by the City. Polston moved, Hanus seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION $98-85 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT TO REPAIR A RETAINING WALL FOR JOHN & LINDA VERKENNES, 4771 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE The applicant then mentioned the stairway that is also on the public property. He stated that the metal stairway that is there is not up to code and should also be replaced. The Building Official agreed with the applicant. The Building Official encouraged the Council to require the stairway to also be repaired and brought up to code. The applicant stated that the stairway was not damaged by the storm. The Mayor stated that the stairway would be a separate issue and should be dealt with separately. The Building Official suggested the following: That the Council approval the public lands permit for the replacement of the retaining walls and the stairway. The applicant to be responsible for the cost and installation of the stairway and that the Staff be directed, through the City Manager, to work with the applicant regarding the City paying for the cost of replacing the retaining walls. The Council asked if plans have been submitted. The Building Official stated that the applicant does have plans and that he and the Park Director are agreeable to the plans. He further explained that they are not sufficient for a Building Permit but they are sufficient enough to get through this process tonight with the two conditions mentioned above. The Council asked the applicant if he is applying for both a permit for the retaining wall and a permit for the stairway. The applicant answered, yes. The Building Official stated that the City would choose the contractor to do the work. 10 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - JULY 28, 1998 The Mayor stated there is a motion on the floor to approve a public lands permit for the retaining wall and having the City look into using FEMA reimbursement for the repair of the wall. He stated he would then make a second motion for the stairway. The Council discussed only repairing the damaged wall with a similar type timber wall. If the applicant wants a better wall than the timber wall that was damaged, he would be responsible for that cost. The Building Official stated that Staff and the applicant have put together a cost estimate of the portion of the project that is related to the storm damage and the City could pay that portion. The Mayor stated he would like to see some type of general specifications developed for stairways and retaining walls that go in public lands. This could include a standard type of material to be used. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Polston moved, Hanus seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION//98-86 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT TO REPLACE A STAIRWAY FOR JOHN & LINDA VERKENNES, 4771 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE The Mayor stated that he wants this stairway to be some standard wood type construction that has been allowed in the past. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. MULTIPLE DOCK APPLICATION: 1.13 FINE LINE DESIGN, STEVEN BEHNKE, SETON BLUFF. The Building Official stated that today new information was received which changes the number of slips being requested and the location of the dock. He stated Staff has not had a chance to review the change in the application and he is recommending that the application be referred back to the Dock & Commons Commission and be treated as a multiple dock license under Section 437. The applicants were present. Tom Stokkes, owner of the property, stated he would like to give a little background. "Back in May we had plat approval of the development there and we were told we couldn't start the dock approval process until plat approval was completed. So we started our process in May to get on the May Dock Committee. We found that rather difficult. We found that we couldn't get a 11 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - JULY 28, 1998 consensus as to what was required from us. We got limited information. We also got conflicting information from different Staff members as to what was necessary. Having gone through the process for the development, we felt that it was necessary for us to really document our paperwork. So we sent our request in, I believe it was dated June 10th, receipt return so we could document that the paperwork had been given. We waited for the normal communication process. I think we had a couple or at least one phone conversation with Staff between then and the next Dock Committee Meeting. So we contacted them a few days before the Dock Committee Meeting and Kris hadn't seen any paperwork on it. We were told at that time that you hadn't received our application and nobody knew where it was. We then followed up with our paperwork and said we not only know we sent it but, we have a receipt that says you received it. A few days later, we were told it was indeed received but had floated around in the offices and nothing had been done on it. At that time, we were rather frustrated. Certainly time is of the essence for us in the project and I don't think I need to go through basic sales with any of you folks. If you want to sell a car to somebody, you have to get them in the car. If we want to sell lakeshore to someone we have get them down to the lake and we've started our process and within 30 days, we'll have our development finished, we expect, or very close to that. I contacted some of the Councilmembers, I guess, and they assisted us in getting here in front of you tonight. Certainly, it was no fault of ours that it didn't go in front of the Dock Committee at that time. It was rather frustrating. It was a pattern that we had seen in the past and now we saw it continuing. We were told we could come before the Committee tonight and we got the recommendation from the Staff and we were told, at that time, actually, something completely different than I had been told up to then, that it was a Commercial Dock License, and that we needed additional items. That was the first we were notified of it. I believe it was Monday morning when we received that recommendation. It wasn't until this afternoon that we were then told that, for whatever reason, things had changed, and now it was a residential permit that was going on to the Dock Committee. I had a brief conversation with Jim Fackler and he suggested that we change it from five slips to six slips because the DNR had changed their policy. We didn't want to change the flow of anything. I know that our Counsel is here tonight and he has had communications with the City's Counsel on this because we have been very frustrated with this process. We were told that the recommendation was to defer this back to the Dock Commission which is my understanding hasn't met or had a quorum to meet for at least the last 3 or 4 meetings." The Mayor stated that was not true except for the last meeting. Stephen Carr, Mr. Stokkes attorney, addressed the Council and stated that the process has been rather aggravating to Mr. Stokkes in the sense that this committee that now you want him to go back to seems to be having some difficulty getting together. Mr. Carr stated that he had spoken to one of the attorneys in the City Attorney's office who indicated that Mr. Stokkes should lobby the members of the Dock Committee to meet. He did not feel this was his client's responsibility. The Mayor stated he did not think this is the problem. He stated it was his understanding that Mr. Stokkes was told to apply for a Commercial Dock License, which as he understands it is not the case. The Mayor asked the Building Official if Mr. Stokkes was told to apply for a Commercial Dock License. The Building Official state yes, via his report. The Mayor asked if they have applied for a Commercial Dock License. The Building Official stated that the applicants, haven't really submitted an application. They have submitted materials and the 12 3o33 (- MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - JULY 28, 1998 background material that is in the Council packet. The Building Official stated that he spoke with Mr. ltehneke on lune Ist and he attempted to submit a Public Lands Permit that/nclud the dock issues. On that day, the Building Official insUmcted Ivlr. Behnke to work with Mr. Fackler, regarding the multiple dock issue. The Building Official stated that on that day, he rejected the Public I_ands Permit application because it was incomplete. Mr. Behnke worked with Mr. Fackler and resubmitted some materials to the City and in between that time called the Building Official and told him that they had changed their plans and it was no longer a Public Lands Permit application. The Building Official then stated that then a couple of days later some information was received from Mr. Behnke regarding this dock and public lands issues. The Building Official stated he took this information and discussed it in his department, and put it in a hold file, because it did not contain the narrative and it was incomplete. It was not an application and it wasn't suitable for review by his department. The Mayor asked if the applicant was told that his information was being held because it was incomplete. The Building Official stated that he believes Mr. Behnke was in contact with Mr. Faclder and was instructed to work with Mr. Fackler on the multiple dock issues. Mr. Behnke was also faxed information on Sections 436 and 437 of the City Code. Then the Park Director went on vacation and the balance of the material was received by the City and at that point the Building Official tried to assist the applicant and process their request. The Mayor asked why the applicant was applying for a Commercial Dock License when it is a public lands use for public dockage on City property. The City Attorney stated he does not think the applicant was so concerned about what they were applying for. They want the opportunity to build some docks. The appropriate thing to do was to apply for a multiple dock on public lakeshore. The Building Official explained that today additional information was received from the applicant but the Park Director did not have time to respond to it and put together a report. According to the Code it needs to go to the Dock Commission for their review also. The City Attorney suggested that since there is staff work that needs to be done, but the developer also is anxious for an answer, this could be scheduled for the next City Council Meeting and the Dock & Commons Advisory Commission could be notified that if they wish to review the request they could hold a special meeting between now and then. MOTION made by Jensen, seconded by Hanus to table this item until the August 11, 1998, City Council Meeting. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. INFORMATIONfMISCELLANEDUS: B. C. D. Financial Report for June 1998 as prepared by Gino Businaro, Finance Director. LMCD Mailings. Park and Open Space Commission Minutes of July 9, 1998. Economic Development Commission Minutes of July 16, 1998. 13 303¥ MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- JULY 28, 1998 Ew Mound Advisory Planning Commission Minutes of July 13, 1998. Minutes and related information from the Suburban Rate Authority (SRA). Peter Meyer, Chair, POSC, asked that two editorials published in the Star Tribune be distributed to the City Council. They are included for your information. WCCB Meeting, Wednesday, July 29, 1998, 7:00 p.m., Mound City Hall. The City Manage explained that the School District has asked that this meeting be changed to Monday, August 3, because the voting member and the alternate are out of town. The Council agreed. MOTION made by Jensen, seconded by Weycker to adjourn at 9:15 P.M. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Manager Attest: City Clerk 14 RECEIVED SIGN PERMIT APPLICATION AU6 - 4 '1998 ' QUASI PUB[]'C FUNCTION - PORTABLE SIGN MOUND PLANtflNG & INSP. City of Mound, 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600 FAX: 472-0620 Portable signs used for the purpose of directing the public used in conjunction with a governmental unit or quasi-public functions. The period of use shall not exceed ten (10) consecutive days and requires approval of the City Council. Signs shall be placed on the premises of the advertised event, and/or on such other premises as approved by the City Council when granting the permit. A permit is required, however is exempt from all fees. NAME(If more thanOF one,APPLiCANTPlease llst on ~'~ ~~.separate sheet of paper) NUMBER OF SIGNS: TYPE OF SIGN: banner wall mount temporary permanent SIZE OF SIGN: feet high x !DATES OF USE: FROM__/ feet wide = TO__/__/.__ DESCRIBE SIGN (message, materials, is it illuminated, etc.): free standing square feet IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL ON: LOCATIONS OF A FRAME SIGNS: -by Depot -by Super America -by Crow River Bank -by vacant lot across from PDQ -by OLL over-street sign: -across #110 by Highland FOR THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING AUGUST 11, 1998 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD CITY OF MOUND (612) 472-0600 FAX (612)472-0620 August 4, 1998 TO: MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL FROM: RE: FRAN CLARK, CITY CLERK LICENSES FOR OUR LADY OF THE LAKE INCREDIBLE FESTIVAL SEPTEMBER 12 & 13, 1998 The following permits are being requested. Please waive the fee on the Public Dance Permit. Approval contingent upon all required forms, insurance etc. being turned in. We cannot waive the fee for the Beer Permit. PUBLIC DANCE PERMIT TEMPORARY 3.2 BEER PERMIT printed on recycled paper LEN HARRELL Chief of Police MOUND POLIC 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Telephone 472-0621 Dispatch 525-6210 Fax 472-0656 EMERGENCY 911 TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Ed Shukle Len Harrell May 8, 1998 Revising Section 220, Emergency Preparedness History The lake area Emergency Management Directors (Civil Defense) have been working with Hennepin County, and the State of Minnesota to develop a lake area emergency plan for responding to emergencies, and major incidents. As small communities with limited resources, we depend on our neighbors' assistance during major incidents. During this process, we discovered many ordinances required revisions. We then decided to explore the possibility of also developing a lake area ordinance that meets federal and state requirements, and maintains local control for each city. This was no small task. After approximately a year of research, study and review, we have developed an ordinance which meets that standard, and we are developing the emergency plan to compliment the ordinance. Prior to completing the emergency plan, we are asking the cities to first adopt the new ordinance. It meets the new state and federal requirements for mutual aid and emergency preparedness. The only changes that may be necessary are revising the numbers to meet each city's specific code book. However, if a city wants any revisions, we ask that you do not adopt this ordinance. Instead, refer your suggestions back to us so we may consider revising the lake area ordinance and continue to meet the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 12. The emergency managers that have been meeting for the past year developing this ordinance and emergency plan are from: Mound, Minnetrista, Deephaven, Shorewood, Greenwood, Tonka Bay, Spring Park, Orono, Long Lake, Medina, St. Bonifacius, Independence, Maple Plain, Hennepin Parks, Hennepin County Shedff, Hennepin County Emergency Preparedness, and consultants from State of Minnesota Department of Emergency Management and the Emergency Response and Review Commission. I will be happy to answer any questions about this collaborative effort by the lake area emergency managers. This has been a very productive project. The end result will be improved response to emergency situations, joint sharing of resources, and maximizing the level of safety for our citizens during a major incident or disaster. EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE Section 1. Policy and Purpose Subdivision 1. Because of the existing possibility of the occurrence of disasters of unprecedented size and destruction resulting from fire, flood, tornado, blizzard, destructive winds or other natural causes, or from sabotage, hostile action, or from hazardous material mishaps of catastrophic measure or other major incidents, and in order to insure that preparations of the City will be adequate to deal with such disasters and generally, to provide for the common defense and to protect the public peace, health and safety, and to preserve the lives and property of the people of this City, it is hereby found and declared to be necessary. To establish a City emergency management organization responsible for City planning and preparation for emergency government operations in time of disasters. b) To provide for the exercise of necessary powers during emergencies and disasters. c) To provide for the rendering of mutual aid between the City, and other political subdivisions with respect to the carrying out of emergency preparedness functions. d) To comply with the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 12, known as the Minnesota Emergency Management Act of 1996. e) To participate as a member of the Lake Minnetonka Regional Emergency Management, Preparedness Planning and Review Committee and accept its emergency plan as the City's basic plan for responses to emergencies, disasters, major incidents, mutual aid and other projects consistent with this ordinance and _Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 12. Section 2. Definitions Subdivision 1, "Emergency Management" means the preparation for and the carrying out of all emergency functions, to prevent, minimize and repair injury and damage resulting from disasters caused by fire, flood, tornado and other acts of nature, or from sabotage, hostile action, or from industrial hazardous material mishaps or other major incidents. These functions include, without limitation, fire-fighting services, police services, emergency medical services, engineering, warning services, communications, radiological, and chemical, evacuation, congregate care, emergency transportation, existing or properly assigned functions of plant protection, temporary restoration of public utility services and other functions related to civil protection, together with all other activities necessary or incidental for carrying out of the foregoing functions. Emergency management includes those activities sometimes referred to as "Civil Defense" or "Emergency Preparedness" functions. Subdivision 2. "Disaster" means a situation which creates an immediate and serious impairment to the health and safety of any person, or a situation which has resulted in or is likely to result in major loss to property, and for which traditional sources of relief and assistance within the affected area are unable to repair or prevent the injury or loss. Subdivision 3. "Emergency" means an unforeseen combination of circumstances which calls for immediate action to respond, or prevent from developing or occurring. Subdivision 4. "Emergency Management Forces" means the total personnel resources engaged in city- level emergency management functions in accordance with the provision of this resolution or any rule or order thereunder.. This includes personnel from City departmen$ authorized volunteers, and private organizations and agencies. Subdivision 5. "Emergency Management Organization" means the staff element responsible for coordinating city-level planning and preparation for disaster response. This organization provides City lidson and coordination with federal, state and local jurisdictions relative to disaster preparedness activities, major incidents, mutual aid, and other projects consistent with this ordinance and assures implementation of federal, state, county and other program requirements. Subdivision 6. "Major Incident" means any incident which exhausts local resources. Subdivision 7. "Emergency Management Mutual Aid" means any disaster or major incident which requires the dispatching of city personnel, equipment or other necessary resources within or without the city limits. Subdivision 8. "Lake Minnetonka Regional Emergency Management, Preparedness Planning and Review Committee" means a committee made up of the Lake Minnetonka area emergency management directors which develops, renews and establishes a basic emergency plan, and identifies and coordinates training for member communities and reviews local plans, exercises, major incidents and disaster responses which are consistent with this ordinance. Section 3. Establishment of an Emergency Management Organization Subdivision I. There is hereby created with the City government an emergency management organization which shall be under the supervision and control of the Emergency Management Director, hereinafter called the "director". The director shall be appointed by the Mayor. LM.R.E.M.P.P.R.C. recommends the Chief Law Etforcernent Officer be appointed the director,). The director shall have direct responsibility for the organization, administration and operation of the emergency preparedness orgaxfization. Section 4. Powers and Duties of the Director Subdivision 1. The director shall represent the City on any regional or state conference for emergency management. The director may develop additional mutual aid agreements with other political subdivisions of the state for reciprocal emergency management aid and assistance in an emergency too great to be dealt w/th unassisted, and shall present such agreements to the City for its action. Such arrangements shall be consistent with the Emergency Plan. The director shall also be the City's representative on the Lake Minnetonka Regional Emergency Management, Preparedness Planning and Review Committee. Subdivision 2. The director shall m~e assessments ofpersonneI, businesses and industries, resources and facilities of the City as deemed necessary to determine their adequacy for emergency management and to plan for their most efficient use in time of an emergency, major incident or disaster. Subdivision 3. The director shall prepare a comprehensive emergency plan for the emergency preparedness of the City and shall present such plan to the City for its approval. When the Council has approved the plan by resolution, it shall be the duty of all City agencies and all emergency preparedness forces ofthe City to perform the duties and functions assigned by the plan as approved. The plan may be modified in like manner from time to time. The director shall coordinate the basic emergency management activities of the City to the end that they shall be consistent and fully integrated with the basic emergency plan of the Lake Minnetonka Regional Emergency Management, Preparedness Planning and Review Committee, and Federal and State Governments Subdivision 4. In accordance with the Emergency Plan, the director shall institute such training programs, public information programs and conduct practice warning alerts and emergency exercises as may be necessary to assure prompt and effective operation of the Emergency Plan when a disaster, major incident or mutual aid occurs. Subdivision 5. The director, during an emergency, major incident or mutual aid, shall utilize the personnel, services, equipment, supplies and facilities of existing departments and agencies of the City to the maximum extent practicable. The officers and personnel of all such departments and agencies shall be, to the maximum extent practicable, cooperative with and extend such services and facilities to the Emergency Management organization. The head of each department or agency in cooperation with the director shall be responsible for the planning and programming of such emergency activities as will involve the utilization of the facilities of the department or agency. Subdivision 6. The director shall, in cooperation with the existing departments and agencies affected, assist in the organizing, recruiting and training of such emergency management personnel, that may be required on a volunteer basis to carry out the emergency plans. To the ex'tent that such emergency personnel are recruited to augment a regular department or agency for emergencies, they shall be assigned to such departments or agencies and shall be under the admin/stration and control of said department or agency. Subdivision' 7. The director shall carry out all orders, rules and regulations issued by the governing authority with reference to emergency management. Subdivision 8. The director shall prepare and submit such reports on emergency preparedness activities as may be requested by the governing authority. Section 5. Local Emergencies Subdivision 1. A local emergency, including a disaster, major incident or mutual aid response, may be declared by the Mayor, the director, or their legal successors. It shall not be continued for a period in excess of three days except by or with the consent of the governing bom'd of the political subdi¼sion Any order, or proclamation declaring, continuing, or terminating a local emergency shall be given prompt and general publicity and shall be filed promptly by the clerk of the local records-keeping agency of the subdivision. 3ot12.. Subdivision 2, A declaration of a local emergency shall invoke necessaxy portions of the response and recovery aspects of applicable plans including fiscal expenditures which are consistent with this ordinance. Subdivision 3.. No other jurisdictional agency or official may declare a local emergency unless expressly authorized by the agreement under which the agency functions. Section 6. Emergency Regulations Subdivision 1. Whenever necessary to meet a declared emergency or to prepare for such an emergency for which adequate regulations have not been adopted by the Governor or the City Council, the Council may by resolution promulgate regulations, consistent with the applicable federal or state law or regulation, respecting: the conduct of persons and the use of property during emergencies: the repair, maintenance, and safeguarding of essential public services, emergency health, fire, and safety regulation, drills, or practice periods required for preliminary training, and all other matters which are required to protect public safety, health, and welfare in declared emergencies. Subdivision 2. Every resolution of emergency regulations shall be in writing: shall be dated; shall refer to the particular emergency to which it pertains, if so limited, and shall be filed in the Office of the City Administrator, which copy shall be kept posted and available for public inspection during business hours. Notice of the existence of such regulation and its availability for inspection at the Administrator's Office shall be conspicuously posted at the front of the city halt or other headquarters of the City or at such other places in the affected are as the Council shall designate in the resolution. By like resolution, the Council may modify or rescind any such regulation. Subdivision 3. The City Council may rescind any such regulation by resolution at any time. If not sooner rescinded, every such regulation shall expire at the end of 30 days after its effective date or at the end of the emergency to which it relates, whichever comes first. Any resolution, rule or regulation inconsistent with an emergency regulation promulgated by the Council shall be suspended during the period of time and to the extent such conflict exists. Subdivision 4. During a declared emergency, the director is, notwithstanding any statutory or charter provision on the contrary, empowered through its governing body acting within or without the corporate limits of the City, to enter into contracts and incur obligations necessary to combat such disaster' by protecting the health and safety of persons and property and providing emergency assistance to the victims of such disaster. The director may exercise such powers in the light of the exigencies of the disaster without compliance with the time-consuming procedures and formalities prescribed by law pertaining to the performance of public work, entering rental equipment agreements, purchase of supplies and materials, limitations upon tax levies, and the appropriation and expenditure of public funds including, but not limited to, publication of resolutions, publication of call for bids, provisions of personnel laws and rules, provisions relating to low bids, and requirements for budgets. )o 3 II Section 7. Emergency Management A Governmental Function Subdivision 1. All functions thereunder and all other activities relating to emergency management are hereby declared to be governmental functions. The provisions of this section shall not affect the right of any person to receive benefits to which he would otherwise be entitled under this resolution or under the worker's compensation law, or under any pension law, nor the right of any such person to receive any benefits or compensation under any act of Congress. Section 8, Participation in Labor Dispute or Politics Subdivision 1. The emergency management organization shall not participate in any form of political activity, nor shall it be employed directly or indirectly for political purposes, nor shall it be employed in a labor dispute. The director may express professional opinions on legislative or other legal regulations consistent with the areas found in Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 12. Section 9. Authorizing Dispatch and Use of City Equipment and Services by the Director in Emergency Situations (Mutual Aid) Subdivision 1. The City finds it desirable and necessary to authorized the director to dispatch City equipment and personnel to local communities who request aid to combat their emergency, disaster, or major incident consistent with this ordinance, and Section 4, Subdivision 5. Subdivision 2. The director shall evaluate the internal needs of the City, and dispatch appropriate available aid. The director shall immediately recall, order and terminate the use of any dispatched equipment and personnel when the need for their use no longer exists, or earlier, when it appears in the best interest of the City~ Aid requested from outside the Lake Mirmetonka Regional area, or extended local aid, shall require mutual agreement between the director and the city Manager/Administrator or their designee. Subdivision 3. The director shall be fully authorized as an act of the City, and all provisions for compensation of personnel, rental of equipment, liability insurance coverage, workman's compensation insurance and all other safeguards and matters pertaining to the City, its equipment and personnel, shall apply in each case as if specifically authorized and directed at such time, whether or not the governing body or authority of the place in wl'fich the disaster, major incident, mutual aid, or other occurrence exists, has previously requested and provided for assistance and the use of equipment and personnel under a mutual protection agreement or other type protection agreement within the City. Section 10. Effective Date Approval TOTAL BILLS, AUGUST 11, 1998 BATCH 8073 $122,236.23 BATCH 8074 TOTAL BILLS 130,481.11 $252,717.34 o0oo6oooooo ggg''''gggoooo o,oo?oo?oo~ · z U.. z o,~oo ~oo0oo ~oo~ooooo ? ~y z~ uJ I ? o z Z ? o. ~U >< 1, o~ r~ J~ f~ g g ° ? § z (--1 LU ! 0~- o~ 8 ~ 0 co Z UJ }--12 ! ~oooo~ ooo~ oo oooo J 0 0 ~ I J, J August 11, 1998 PROPOSED RESOLUTION #98- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW THE REPLACEMENT OF 8 EXISTING LIGHT POLES AT MEMORIAL FIELD WITH FOUR (4) 70 FOOT LIGHTING STANDARDS, LOCATED WITHIN THE B-1 CENTRAL BUSINESS ZONING DISTRICT, AT 5800 LYNWOOD BOULEVARD WESTONKA SCHOOL DISTRICT #277, PART OF LOTS 30 AND 21, LYNWOOD PARK, PID # 14-117-24 41 0058 PZ CASE #98-46 WHEREAS, the owner, Westonka School District # 277, has applied for a conditional use permit to replace the lighting standards at Memorial Field; and, WHEREAS, the proposal is to replace the existing 8 lighting standards with 4 new lighting standards. The new lighting standards will be 70 feet in height, and increase of 10 feet above the existing 60 feet light standards; and, WHEREAS, two lighting standards will be located on each side of the football field, placed at approximately the 15 yard line; and, WHEREAS, the proposed lighting plan conforms to code lighting requirements and will improve the overall field lighting while reducing spill and glare into adjacent properties; and, WHEREAS, the proposed lighting standards are a substantial improvement to the field as the existing lighting is outdated and has safety concerns; and, WHEREAS, staff recommended approval of the 70 feet lighting standards and the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval; and, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota hereby approve a conditional use permit for four (4) 70 foot lighting standards. August 11, 1998 PROPOSED RESOLUTION #98- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO APPROVE A 30 FOOT HEIGHT VARIANCE TO A LIGHTING STANDARD FOR THE INCORPORATION OF A WIRELESS TELEPHONE ANTENNA EQUIPMENT WHICH WOULD EXTEND TO A HEIGHT OF 120 FEET, LOCATED WITHIN THE B-1 CENTRAL BUSINESS ZONING DISTRICT, AT 5600 LYNWOOD BOULEVARD WESTONKA SCHOOL DISTRICT #277, PART OF LOTS 30 AND 21, LYNWOOD PARK, PID # 14-117-24 41 0058 PZ CASE #98-45 WHEREAS, the owner, Westonka School District # 277, and applicant, US West Wireless Communications have applied for a height variance to locate a wireless telephone antenna at Memorial Field; and, WHEREAS, wireless telephone antenna facilities are permitted as non-tower facilities in the B-1 district and can be located on lighting standards when stealth design is used to blend the antenna into the structure and surrounding environment; and, WHEREAS, the wireless telephone antenna would be located at the top of the proposed 120 feet lighting standard. A 30 foot height variance above the 70 foot lighting standard height is needed to accommodate the antenna. An additional 20 feet of height would be allowed for antenna support structure without a vadance which would bdng the total lighting structure height to 120 feet; and, WHEREAS, US West and the School District are jointly involved in the project which includes three other lighting standards which will be 70 feet in height. US West will retain use of northeast lighting standard for a wireless antenna to be placed at 120 feet; and, WHEREAS, staff recommended denial of the request and the Planning Commission recommended approval 3-2-1; and, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota hereby approves a 30 foot height variance to a lighting standard for purposes of accommodating a wireless telecommunication antenna. Mound Planning Commission Minutes July 27, 1998 MINUTES MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, JULY 27, 1998 Those present: Chair Geoff Michael, Frank Weiland, Cklair Hasse, Becky Glister, Michael Mueller, and Council Liaison Mark Hanus. Staff present: Assistant City Planner Loren Gordon, Building Official Jon Sutherland, Secretary Kris Linquist. Absent and Excused: Jerry Clapsaddle, Orv Burma, and Bill Voss. Public Present: Jim Regan, Lora Bloomquist, Marshall Anderson, Greg Robbins - lSD #277, Peter Meyer, Chris Loew, Keith Randklev, Scott Hoeschler- USWest, Craig Gallop - MUSCO Lighting. Meeting was called to order at 7:32 p.m. by Chair Geoff Michael. MINUTES - APPROVAL OF THE JULY 13, 1998 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. On page 7 of the minutes on case # 98-38 under the discussion, correction to Mark Hanus comments ( 2n~ paragraph) should state: "He stated that Mr. Cook stores his bobcat and trailer on the lot." So noted and corrected. MOTION by Weiland, seconded by Hasse to approve the Minutes of the July 13, 1998 Planning Commission Meeting. Motion carried 6-0. BOARD OF APPEALS: CASE # 98-46: PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, LIGHT STANDARDS AND MONOPOLE AT 5600 LYNWOOD BLVD, WESTONKA SCHOOL DISTRICT # 2771US WEST WIRELESS, UNPLATTED 14 117 24, PID # 14-117-24 41 0011 CASE# 98-45: VARIANCE, HEIGHT CONSTRAINT, WESTONKA SCHOOL DISTRICT #2771US WEST WIRELESS, 5600 LYNWOOD BLVD, UNPLATTED 14 117 24, PID # 14-117-24 41 0011 Assistant Planner Loren Gordon presented the case. Mound Planning Commission Minutes July 27, 1998 Two applications have been submitted for related items regarding new lighting standards and a wireless telephone antenna at Memorial Field. The conditional use permit application submitted by Westonka Public Schools is to update the conditional use permit, replacing the 8 existing light poles and lighting with 4 new poles and lighting. Three of the four new standards will be 70 feet in height, an increase of about 10 feet above the existing standards which are approximately 60 feet in height. The second application associated with the lighting standards, submitted by US West Wireless, is for a wireless telephone antenna to be placed on the forth lighting standard or "tower." The tower, as proposed, would be 120 feet in height and would accommodate both lighting, attached to the tower at 70 feet, and wireless telephone antenna, attached at the top of the tower. Associated with the antenna is a base station unit located at the base of the tower housing communications equipment and a backup power generator. US West Wireless and the Westonka School District have entered into an agreement which they feel is a mutual benefit to both parties. Because Memorial Field needs new lighting and US West needs a wireless antenna location, US West has offered to pay for 75% percent of the costs for the new lighting cost in return for use of one of the standards for a wireless antenna. Under the terms of the contract between the two parties, US West would have access to its antenna and base station unit for the length of time it uses the tower for an antenna. If the antenna were no longer in use, the equipment would be removed, and the school district would retain full ownership of the lighting standards. Lighting Stand@rd~ The B-1 district regulates structure height to 45 feet with a conditional use permit. As proposed, three lighting standards would require a 25 feet height variance. There is no permit history on file for the existing lighting standards. The lighting standards are an overall improvement for the field. The number of standards as proposed will be reduced from 8 to 4. The proposed luminaries incorporate modern lighting technology that, according to the lighting manufacturer, will reduce the spill lighting 2 times or more onto adjacent properties. Glare, or the perceived amount of light, will also be reduced. The impact on adjacent residential properties west and south of the field will be less than the current lighting. This request seems to be consistent with the trends in the lighting industry to use a fewer number of poles with a larger number of lighting fixtures per pole with little increase in overall height. A lighting plan is included with the application which meets the code lighting requirements. Wireless Antenna Section 350:1300, "Telecommunications Towers and Facilities," addresses the location of antennas when not located on a telecommunications tower. Essentially, a tower is a self- supported monopole structure up to 125 feet in height that supports telecommunications facilities. "Antenna Support Structure" means a building, athletic field lighting, water tower, or other structure, other than a tower, which can be used for location of telecommunications Mound Planning Commission Minutes July 27, 1998 facilities. Additionally, antennas are allowed to be integrated within a light pole when designed to blend into the surrounding environment. Section 350:1305 Subd. 6 of the Definitions states: "Stealth" means designed to blend into the surrounding environment; examples of stealth facilities include, without limitation, architecturally screened roof-mounted antennas, antennas integrated into architectural elements, and telecommunications towers designed to appear other than as a tower, such as light poles, power poles, and trees. Section 350:1370 Subd. 2(1) Non-tower facilities, is fairly explicit is addressing the integration of antennas on structures that are not "towers." This section also provides for additional height above the top of the lighting standard stating: "...the height from grade of the telecommunications facilities and antennae support structure does not exceed the maximum height from grade of the antenna support structure by more than 20 feet..." Conceptually, the approach of integrating wireless telephone antennas into existing structures meets the intent of the code. This application, however, does not meet the specific parameters established for integration. During the preparation of the telecommunications ordinance, staff was careful in drafting language that would be clear on how integration of antennas on existing structures could occur. The intent of the ordinance is to design telecommunications facilities that would not appear out of character with the surrounding environment by attempting to minimize the potential visual impacts that a 125 feet monopole tower could create. Allowing antennas on existing structures is one way to accomplish this end. By encouraging this design, it presents a win-win situation by protecting the residential character of Mound and requiring less capital investment in facilities by telecommunications companies. This proposal does little to satisfy the intent of the telecommunications ordinance. The request is essentially to allow a tower within a B-1 district which is a use variance not permitted by code. The ordinance specifically limits towers to Light Industrial (I-1) and Planned Industrial Area (PLA) districts. Granting a height variance skirts the intent of the code by essentially allowing a monopole tower under the guise of a lighting standard. This is not to say an antenna cannot be located on the lighting standard. The code does allow the antenna to have an additional 20 feet of height above the top of a lighting standard. With the approval of the conditional use permit to allow the 70 feet lighting standards, the antenna would be permitted to extend up to a height of 90 feet without a variance. Staff feels this is the best approach to take for this case. In regards to the lighting, staff feels the plan is an improvement to the existing conditions. The current lighting standards are in poor condition and the new standards will be an improvement. Impacts to the adjacent neighborhood should be reduced with the lighting as Mound Planning Commission Minutes July 27, 1998 proposed. Although this is a joint proposal, denial of the 120 feet antenna height does not necessarily prevent the installation of the lighting standards. US West have stated that their network does need a facility in Mound to prevent coverage holes in the system. In the letter from their engineer, it is stated that without the "site" a gap in coverage will occur. The letter does not document the 110 feet height is a necessity in order to provide service. A denial of the request does not prevent the tower location. It may however cause changes to their network in order to accommodate a 90 feet height at this location. The application does not address this as an option, but this should be explored to determine if it is feasible. Staff recommendation: #98-46 Conditional Use Permit Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approval of the conditional use permit for new lighting standards as proposed. #98-45 Variance Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council deny the requested height variance for the wireless antenna. DISCUSSION: Weiland asked for clarification of the height of the new poles and which pole would be the monopole. He questioned if the pole were to fall would it fall on any structure. Gordon stated that it could fall onto the bleachers, as could the current poles. Weiland asked if there were wires to support this. Gordon stated it was free-standing. Weiland asked about a beacon on the tower for air craft visibility. Gordon stated that it is the applicants responsibility to meet FAA and FCC regulations and the applicant can better respond to that question. Weiland asked if the school district would own the other three light poles. Gordon stated that staff's understanding is the school district would own all 4 poles except the antenna tower. Mueller asked what was presently there. Gordon stated that there are 8 light poles approximately 60 feet in height. Mueller asked if there would still be lights on the hill side. Gordon presented the lighting plan and showed the positioning of the proposed light poles. Mueller questioned the direction of the glare of the lights. Gordon stated the 3o 5 Mound Planning Commission Minutes July 27, 1998 modern lighting standards direct more light onto the field with less glare and spill on to adjacent properties. Mueller questioned the telecommunication ordinance, with US West requesting the ordinance, the location for a monopole in the industrial district. There were question regarding other telecommunications companies use of this monopole. Mueller commented that the football field is one of the lowest areas in Mound. He stated that when the commission looked at the ordinance this site was not one that was discussed. Glister commented on the discussion of having the revenues come to the City of Mound and she only saw the School District benefitting from this Pole. Gordon stated that the ordinance intent is to allow antennas on public facilities as a permitted use for a number of reasons that are of benefit to the telecommunications company and community but not solely as a revenue source for the City. Hasse questioned what kind of equipment would be needed to go along with the pole. Gordon stated a basestation unit would be located at the base of the pole that is needed for communications equipment and backup power. It would be fenced in. Hanus questioned if the proposal was a lighting standard with telecommunications equipment or a monopole with lighting standards. Gordon stated that staff believes it is a a monopole with lighting standards. Hanus questioned the addendum to option and site lease agreement. He wants to know what else is on that agreement. Mueller questioned if the commission should be reviewing that document. Chair Michael opened the Public Hearing: Greg Robbins, lSD #277, stated that USWest approached the School Disctrict with a proposal to help the school replace the poles. The School District is paying for 1 pole and 1 lighting standard and the underground wiring for all the lights. USWest is paying for 3 poles and 3 lighting standards including their monopole. Weiland asked about the lease. Robbins stated that after the lease is up, the school district would own the poles. Mueller asked why the lighting standards need to go 70 feet. Mueller questioned if the US WEST would not have come to the School District, would the School have replaced the poles. Robbins stated there would not be funds available for new lighting. Robbins stated that they would be forced to play day games if something wasn't done with the lighting at the fields. Mound Planning Commission Minutes July 27, 1998 Mueller asked when US WEST approached the School. Robbins stated in March. Hasse commented that we should deal with the issues at hand and that its not the commissions position to discuss who was going to pay for what. Scott Hoeschler, US WEST, stated that this sight was his main focus from day one. The pole will not be lighted. He stated that they ask the FAA for approval. In this case, nothing would need to be done. As a rule of thumb, a pole over 200 feet in height would need lights or to be painted. The base station are about the size of a refrigerator and they will be fenced. He stated that the poles are built in 30 feet sections. PCS needs to be placed in specific locations. Weiland questioned if US WEST would ever want to add 30 feet to the 120 foot proposed pole. Hoeschler commented that they would not need to go higher than that. Michael questioned how they would build the base to support the tower and what the maximum would be. Hoeschler stated that if they propose a 120 foot tower they would build a foundation to support a 120 foot tower. Hoeschler presented examples of monopole towers and other lighting pole standards with antennas. Mueller stated that he doesn't recall talking about 120 poles when there was discussion for the Telecommunications Towers and Facilities ordinance. He stated again that the football was one of the lowest sights in Mound. There was some discussion on personal views of the project. Hoeschler stated that this is the only site they need at this time. Hoeschler stated that this pole would have access ports. Mueller stated the section 350:1320 Subd. 1 about collocation. Mueller stated that he would like to see that this pole be able to house other companies. There was some more discussion on the stipulations on the conditional use permit. Peter Meyer, 5748 Sunset Blvd., lives in the neighborhood of the proposed site. He feels that Mound is getting improvements done to our recreational facilities. He feels that the lighting is a big plus to the Community. Craig Gallop, MUSCO Lighting, stated that their company would be doing the lighting and that he was present if there were any questions. Mound Planning Commission Minutes July 27, 1998 Weiland questioned about climbing spikes on the pole. Gallop stated that there are no spikes or steps. Mueller questioned the up grade from 60 feet to 70 feet. Gallop stated that they would be reducing the number of lights and that the downward angle of the lights would shine more on the field instead of glare outward. He explained the lighting would reduce the glare to the neighboring residences. Keith Randklev, 6680 County Road 110 W, Minnetrista, commented on the improvement of the area and that it will help with activities programs. There was discussion of the need for new lighting standards at the fields. Jim Regan, 5430 Three Points Blvd., asked about the incident that happened. Robbins explained what happened at the game. Asked if soil samples were taken. Lora Bloomquist, 5748 Lynwood, Likes the idea of less glare and less poles. She feels that it is a good deal for both the school district and for US WEST. Mueller asked about the removal of the current poles. Robbins stated that the old poles would be removed before the new ones would be installed. Chair Michael closed the Public Hearing. Weiland asked if the variance was part of the Conditional Use Permit. Gordon stated that he combined the two in his report. Glister asked if this was the first PCS request. Gordon stated that US West first inquired about a location in downtown Mound before the telecommunications ordinance was adopted. This is the first formal application. Hanus commented that we are looking at a variance request to an ordinance that is about two months old. He is struggling with the issue that the school district needs the lights but the commission cannot base their vote on financial need. Weiland stated that he was unaware that so many schools had these poles. Mueller questioned the 350 feet notification radius. Michael questioned where staff came up with the maximum height. Gordon quoted the section in the ordinance that it related to the height constraint. Weiland asked how high the light poles were along commerce blvd. Regan stated 40 feet in height. Weiland stated it was just for comparison reason. Mound Planning Commission Minutes July 27, 1998 There was more discussion on the Industrial area only being 1000 feet away from the proposed site. US WEST stated that they would have to re-evaluate their position. There was more discussion on the location of the pole. Michael commented that he was also struggling with this. He feels that it should be tabled until further figures could be brought forth on why it could not be in the Industrial area. Scott Hoeschler commented that he would not like to see this tabled. He discussed the benefits to having the pole in this location. There was more discussion on the location of where towers should be placed. Hanus commented on the Telecommunication Ordinance. He talked about the collocation. He feels that maybe the Telecommunications Ordinance should be reevaluated. Gordon stated the League of Cities model was used in developing this ordinance. Gordon stated that he felt it would be difficult to revisit the ordinance and find other locations for towers base on previous discussions of the Commission. Keith Randklev spoke on variances and ordinances. That they are used as guidelines. Commented on the benefits that this project would bring to Mound and its residence. Mueller commented that he felt that this site has the least impact. Case 98-46: Conditional Use Permit (CUP): MOTION by Hasse, seconded Mueller to recommend approval of four (4) 70 foot lighting standards. Motion carried 6-0. Case 98-45: Variance: MOTION by Hasse, seconded Mueller to recommend a 30 feet height variance to the lighting standard at the northeast corner of the field for the incorporation of a wireless telephone antenna. Motion carried 3-2-1. In favor: Hasse, Weiland, Mueller. Opposed: Michael, Glister. Abstained: Hanus Finding of fact this sight is 1000 feet or less from the industrial area. This case will go to City Council on August 11, 1998 PLANNING REPORT Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP DATE: July 27, 1998 SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit and Variance OWNER: Westonka Public Schools APPLICANT: US West Wireless and Westonka Public Schools CASE NUMBER: 98-45 and 98-46 HKG FILE NUMBER: 98-5mm and 98-5nn LOCATION: 5600 Lynwood Blvd. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential BACKGROUND: Two applications have been submitted for related items regarding new lighting standards and a wireless telephone antenna at Memorial Field. The conditional use permit application submitted by Westonka Public Schools is to update the conditional use permit, replacing the 8 existing light poles and lighting with 4 new poles and lighting. Three of the four new standards will be 70 feet in height, an increase of about 10 feet above the existing standards which are approximately 60 feet in height. The second application associated with the lighting standards, submitted by US West Wireless, is for a wireless telephone antenna to be placed on the forth lighting standard or "tower." The tower, as proposed, would be 120 feet in height and would accommodate both lighting, attached to the tower at 70 feet, and wireless telephone antenna, attached at the top of the tower. Associated with the antenna is a basestation unit located at the base of the tower housing communications equipment and a backup power generator. US West Wireless and the Westonka School District have entered into an agreement which they feel is a mutual benefit to both parties. Because Memorial Field needs new lighting and US West needs a wireless antenna location, US West has offered to pay for 75% percent of the costs for the new lighting cost in return for use of one of the standards for a wireless antenna. Under the terms of the contract between the two parties, US West would have access to its antenna and basestation unit for the length of time it uses the tower for an antenna. If the antenna were no longer in use, the 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Mirmesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 30?0 p. 2 #98-45 and 46 Westonka Conditional Use Permit/US West Wireless Variance Request July 27, 1998 equipment would be removed, and the school district would retain full ownership of the lighting standards. Lighting Standards The B-1 district regulates structure height to 45 feet with a conditional use permit. As proposed, three lighting standards would require a 25 feet height variance. There is no permit history on file for the existing lighting standards. The lighting standards are an overall improvement for the field. The number of standards as proposed will be reduced from 8 to 4. The proposed luminaries incorporate modern lighting technology that, according to the lighting manufacturer, will reduce the spill lighting 2 times or more onto adjacent properties. Glare, or the perceived amount of light, will also be reduced. The impact on adjacent residential properties west and south of the field will be less than the current lighting. This request seems to be consistent with the trends in the lighting industry to use a fewer number of poles with a larger number of lighting fixtures per pole with little increase in overall height. A lighting plan is included with the application which meets the code lighting requirements. Wireless Antenn8 Section 350:1300, "Telecommunications Towers and Facilities," addresses the location of antennas when not located on a telecommunications tower. Essentially, a tower is a self-supported monopole structure up to 125 feet in height that supports telecommunications facilities. "Antenna Support Structure" means a building, athletic field lighting, water tower, or other structure, other than a tower, which can be used for location of telecommunications facilities. Additionally, antennas are allowed to be integrated within a light pole when designed to blend into the surrounding environment. Section 350:1305 Subd. 6 of the Definitions states: "Stealth" means designed to blend into the surrounding environment; examples of stealth facilities include, without limitation, architecturally screened roof-mounted antennas, antennas integrated into architectural elements, and telecommunications towers designed to appear other than as a tower, such as light poles, power poles, and trees. Section 350:1370 Subd. 2(1) Non-tower facilities, is fairly explicit is addressing the integration of antennas on structures that are not "towers." This section also provides for additional height above the top of the lighting standard stating: "...the height from grade of the telecommunications facilities and antennae support structure does not exceed the maximum height from grade of the antenna support structure by more than 20 feet..." COMMENTS: Conceptually, the approach of integrating wireless telephone antennas 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 p. 3 #98-45 and 46 Westonka Conditional Use Permit/US West Wireless Variance Request July 27, 1998 into existing structures meets the intent of the code. This application, however, does not meet the specific parameters established for integration. During the preparation of the telecommunications ordinance, staff was careful in drafting language that would be clear on how integration of antennas on existing structures could occur. The intent of the ordinance is to design telecommunications facilities that would not appear out of character with the surrounding environment by attempting to minimize the potential visual impacts that a 125 feet monopole tower could create. Allowing antennas on existing structures is one way to accomplish this end. By encouraging this design, it presents a win-win situation by protecting the residential character of Mound and requiring less capital investment in facilities by telecommunications companies. This proposal does little to satisfy the intent of the telecommunications ordinance. The request is essentially to allow a tower within a B-1 district which is a use variance not permitted by code. The ordinance specifically limits towers to Light Industrial (I-1) and Planned Industrial Area (PLA) districts. Granting a height variance skirts the intent of the code by essentially allowing a monopole tower under the guise of a lighting standard. This is not to say an antenna cannot be located on the lighting standard. The code does allow the antenna to have an additional 20 feet of height above the top of a lighting standard. With the approval of the conditional use permit to allow the 70 feet lighting standards, the antenna would be permitted to extend up to a height of 90 feet without a variance. Staff feels this is the best approach to take for this case. In regards to the lighting, staff feels the plan is an improvement to the existing conditions. The current lighting standards are in poor condition and the new standards will be an improvement. Impacts to the adjacent neighborhood should be reduced with the lighting as proposed. Although this is a joint proposal, denial of the 120 feet antenna height does not necessarily prevent the installation of the lighting standards. US West have stated that their network does need a facility in Mound to prevent coverage holes in the system. In the letter from their engineer, it is stated that without the "site" a gap in coverage will occur. The letter does not document the 110 feet height is a necessity in order to provide service. A denial of the request does not prevent the tower location. It may however cause changes to their network in order to accommodate a 90 feet height at this location. The application does not address this as an option, but this should be explored to determine if it is feasible. RECOMMENDATION: #98-45 Conditional Use Permit Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council conditional use permit for new lighting standards as proposed. approval of the 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 p. 4 #98-45 and 46 Westonka Conditional Use Permit/US West Wireless Variance Request July 27, 1998 #98-46 Variance Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council height variance for the wireless antenna. deny the requested 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 . Fax (612) 338-6838 Rev. 11-14-97 ,1, j, Application for CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 Case No. Conditional Use Permit Fee: $250.00 IDistribution: City Planner: ~6 city ~ncneer: "q --t ~ -q 8 P~lic work.: -n-/5..-q 8 Other: Fire ,rint the followin information: INFORMATION Name of Rusiness LEGAL Lm ~ C~ APPLICANT The applicant is: ~ owner other: Name ~C~ Address Phone (H) ,(W) ~ql" ~OqO (M) OWNER (if other than Address ~ ~ ~v , ~' cU diU~ ~'~ '. Name ARCHITECT, SURVEYOR, OR Address ENGINEER Phone (H) (W) ,..(M) ZONING Circle: ~ R-lA R-2 R-3 ~ B-2 B-3 DISTRICT Conditional Use Permit Application Page 2 Description of Proposed Use: EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED USE: List impacts the proposed use will have on property in the vicinity, including, but not limited to traffic, noise, light, smoke/odor, parking, and describe the steps taken to mitigate or eliminate the impacts. If applicable, a development schedule shall be attached to this application providing reasonable guarantees for the completion of the proposed development. Estimated Development Cost of the Project: $~//~9 ~f c/d 0 Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? O~ yes, ( ) no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. This application must be signed by all owners of the subject property, or an explanation given why this is not the case. Print A~plicant's Name Print Owner's Name ~s Signature Date Date Print Owner's Name Owner's Signature Date Rev. 11-14-97 CITY of MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 (612) 472-1155 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE CASE #98-46 CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW REPLACEMENT OF EXISTING LIGHT POLE AT MEMORIAL FIELD WITH A 120 FOOT STEEL POLE SUITABLE FOR ATHLETIC FIELD LIGHTING AND WIRELESS TELEPHONE ANTENNA ALONG WITH THREE (3) 70 FEET POLES WITH LIGHTING STANDARDS, LOCATED WITHIN THE R-1 ZONING DISTRICT, PART OF LOTS 30 AND 21 , LYNWOLD PARK, AT 5600 LYNWOOD BOULEVARD, PID # 14-117-24 41 0058 P & Z 98-46 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, will meet in the Council Chambers, 5341 Maywood Road, at 7:30 p.m. on Tuesday, August 11, 1998 to consider the approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow a replacement of an existing light pole at Memorial Field with a 120 foot steel pole suitable for athletic field lighting and wireless telephone antenna along with three (3) 70 feet poles with lighting standards at 5600 Lynwood Boulevard located within the R-1 Zoning District. -~. ~.'~.~'~"~"~"~"~"~',.~ ~ opportunity to be heard at this me ' ' , - given the ; KriS. ' quist,~la~g Secretary ~-~r~uist~l~g Secreta Mailed to property owners within 350 feet of affected property on August 4, 1998 Published in the Laker, August 1, 1998 CITY of MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 (612) 472-1155 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA CASE #98-46 NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW REPLACEMENT OF EXISTING LIGHT POLE AT MEMORIAL FIELD WITH A 120 FOOT STEEL POLE SUITABLE FOR ATHLETIC FIELD LIGHTING AND WIRELESS TELEPHONE ANTENNA ALONG WITH THREE (3) 70 FEET LIGHTING STANDARDS, LOCATED WITHIN THE R-1 ZONING DISTRICT, PART OF LOTS 30 AND 21 , LYNWOLD PARK, AT 5600 LYNWOOD BOULEVARD, PID # 14-117-24 41 0058 P & Z 98-26 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the Planning Commission of the City of Mound, Minnesota, will meet in the Council Chambers, 5341 Maywood Road, at 7:30 p.m. on Monday, July 27, 1998 to consider the approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow a replacement of an existing light pole at Memorial Field with a 120 foot steel pole suitable for athletic field lighting and wireless telephone antenna along with three (3) 70 feet lighting standards at 5600 Lynwood Boulevard located within the R-1 Zoning District. All persons appearing at said hearing with reference to th~e will given the opportunity to be heard at this meeting'.'-"'---.. /~ ' Mailed to property owners within 350 feet of affected property on July 17, 1998 Published in the Laker, July 18, 1998 B/CD I~, I 44 i 4~ ~z,," :G~._ -~'l / ~69I 't .... U 27) 28. SUI~SET ~ (5312 FART'~ ~,i- LO[ 5J (5) (25i 595.6~ - t57) ._ ~r). ~h f 400 ~, (26) (27) zoo 55 (25) 2oo 5~ "~2oo (29) 57 ZOO (%') 5>. % ~LSA~ ) 40 AUD (FOR USE ONLY) Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 553 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 64 ;IUD ~ 199[ c_~ Application Fee: $100.00 Case No. Distribution: SUBJECT PROPERTY LEGAL DESC. PROPERTY OWNER APPLICANT (IF OTHER THAN OWNER) City Planner City Engineer _-!-! - (~ Public Works ~ Other Lot $=~ /~c_,~ _ Subdivision ZONING DISTRICT ~_~_~- 1A R-2 R-3 B-1 Name~l Address Phon~-~L/ Blvd. ' '¢o?0 ,..,. DNR Plat # B-2 B-3 1. Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? { ) yes, I ) no. If yes, list date{s) of application, action taken, resolution number{s) and provide copies of resolutions. 2. Detailed description of proposed construction or alteration {size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): II Application° o Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes~ No { ). If no, specify each non-conforming use {describe reason for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.): SETBACKS: REQUIRED Front Yard: ( N S E W ) Side Yard: ( N S E W ) Side Yard: ( N S E W ) Rear Yard: ( N S E W ) La. keside; ( N S E W ) Street Frontage: Lot Size: Hardcover: REQUESTED VARIANCE {or existing) ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ;~.c~ ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. sq ft sq ft sq ft sq ft sq ft sq ft Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes ~, No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use: Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? Please too narrow too small too shallow describe: ( ) topography ( ) soil ( ) drainage ~,%~"existing situation ( ) shape ( ) other: specify zv. 11/14/97) 3O 'Variance Al~plication, p. 3 Case No._ q(~ -q,~_ Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone aving property interests land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No~ If yes, explain, in thr. Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (), No~ If yes, explain: Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes,~ No { ). If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected? 9. Comments: J certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this apPlication by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law. Owner's Signature_~._;~., Es., ~ ~~-.--- _J ,'~-~ . Applicant's SignatuE~~~~~~__~ 1/14/9 7) Creative Solutions for Land Planning and Design Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. June 24,1998 Scott Hoelscher US West Wireless Communications Group 426 North Fairview, Room 101 St. Paul, MN 55104 RECEIVED jUN ? 6 i998 J~OUND J-'LANNii',,jG & INSR RE: Mound PCS application - 5600 Lynwood Blvd. Dear Mr. Hoelscher: The letter is in response to the wireless telephone antenna and athletic field lighting standards proposed for Memorial Field. As I understand the application, the proposal is to remove the existing lighting standards, replacing them with three new 71 feet structures and one 120 feet monopole serving a dual purpose for lighting and PCS antennas. The School District property is located in the B-1 District and is regulated by a 35 feet height limit for structures. A 45 feet structural height could be approved with a conditional use permit. As such, the proposed lighting standards and monopole structure would not meet the height requirements. Although the existing wood poles appear to be 50 to 60 feet in height, their replacement does not grant the same height to new standards. Any new structure would be required to meet these height requirements. If this height is not feasible, a variance process could be pursued to appeal the code. This would require an application to the Planning Commission and Council for review of the lighting standards and monopole tower. It is my interpretation that the 120 feet monopole is a tower not a lighting standard. Monopole towers are allowed only in the I-1 district. The code encourages the proposed integration of antennas on existing structures to prevent the proliferation of monopole towers. Section 350:1300 of the City Code, Telecommunication Towers and Facilities, addresses integration of antennas and support structures. Athletic field lighting can be used for telecommunications facilities when they are designed to blend into the pole and maintain a height that is consistent with other poles. The intent is to have a look of a lighting pole rather than a monopole tower. There are other locations available within the City for monopole structures and integration on buildings and existing support structures. If a monopole structure is preferred, locations within the I-1 district are available. There are also a number of School and City facilities such as water towers, existing antennas, and buildings that allow integration of antennas as a permitted use. If you have any additional questions, please call me. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, MN 55401-1659 Ph (612) 338-0800 Fx (612) 338-6838 p. 2 Scott Hoelscher June 24, 1998 Sincerely, Loren Gordon, AICP Assistant City Planner cc~ Jon Sutherland, City of Mound Dan Greensweig, Kennedy and Graven Steve Mangold, US West Wireless Greg Robbins, Westonka School District 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 U S WEST Communications Group 426 North Fairview Room 101 St. Paul, MN 55104 Wireless June 30, 1998 C City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 RE: Variance Application Dear City of Mound: The letter is being submitted in association with an application for a variance to the City of Mound Telecommunications Towers and Facility Ordinance, Section 350:1300, Subd.2 that restricts the height of a telecommunications facility above an antenna support structure on school district property to 20 feet above the height of the antenna support structure. US West Wireless proposes to replace the existing light structures at Memorial Field. The property is located at 5600 Lynwood Boulevard and is owned and operated by the Westonka Public Schools - Independent School District 277. The proposal involves replacement of the existing light standards with four new light standards, three 71 foot structures and one 120 foot structure. The 120 foot structure would be able to accommodate athletic field lighting and Personal Communication Services (PCS) antennas. To accommodate an antenna facility on the proposed 71 foot light standard, a 29 foot height variance is being requested. Restricting telecommunications facilities to 20 feet above an antenna support structure creates a hardship for wireless carriers seeking to establish service in Mound. PCS antennas must be spaced, depending on certain technical and geographic variables at intervals approximately two miles from each other and at a height of approximately ninety to one hundred twenty feet above ground level. Given the size and anticipated magnitude of use, there must be at least one US West Wireless PCS site in Mound in order to fulfill its mandate to provide service through out the license area. To service the Mound community, it has been determined that a 120 foot PCS site at 5600 Lynwood is the optimum location for the US West PCS network. We believe the variance request to replace the existing light structures at Memorial field with a taller structure is consistent with the City of Mound Telecommunications Towers and Facilities Ordinance. The Telecommunications Ordinance specifically addresses the location of antennas on light structures that are under the control of a school district. In addition, the proposed 120 foot lighting structure is consistent with the character of the area. Memorial Field has accommodated light structures for many years. Presently, there are eight light structures on the property. Upgrading the field lighting with four steel poles is not only consistent with the current use of the property but also necessary in order to minimize the risks associated with collapse and failure of the existing light structures. The current US West proposal, then, is not for a new monopole tower, (monopoles already exist at the site), but rather for an extension of a needed light standard. In order to accommodate night activities in the future, four new light structures are needed at Memorial Field. We feel extending one of the light standards to accommodate wireless antennas (so a new tower will not be needed) is the best alternative in order to minimize the visual impact of telecommunication towers. In conclusion, US West Wireless has designed a wireless PCS system for the Twin Cities that attempts to work within allowable zoning ordinances without compromising the intended service requirements of the system. This proposal, if approved by the City Council, will have the effect of limiting the number of new monopole towers in the City of Mound. Thank you for your time and consideration of this application. Please feel free to call me at 642-6042 with any questions you may have. Scott Hoelscher Site Acquisition US West Wireless Steve Mangold, US West Wireless Eugene Sigal, US West Wireless Greg Robbins, Westonka Public Schools $o 5' To: Property Owner: ~ AUT. I.JORIZ~TION Please sign and return the letter of authorization below to: US West Wireless 426 North Fairvlew Avenue St. Paul, MN 55104 Attention: Steven Mangold ; as soon as possible to assure rapid processing of this site! Any building permit applications will be made only after the required zoning approval process has b.een completed. This letter shall not constitute an agreement to enter a bin~lng lease or option to lease, and neither party shall be bound with respect to the leasing of the I:jroperty until a final Lease Agreement is negotiated and signed by both parties. Sincerely, Steven Mangold US West Wireless To Whom It May Concern: LETTER OF AUTHORI~ON I The undersigned hereby authorizes US West Wireless, t~ attorneys, agents or representatives, to make application for any necessary zoning petitions includi~lg the filing of building permit appl~atlons. Page 9 of 23 ADDENDUM TO OPTION AND SITE LEASE AGREEMENT Site: MIN203 The attached Option and Site Lease Agreement made and entered into this day of ,19 , by and between ("Lessor") and U S WEST Wireless, L.L.C., a Delaware limited liability company ("Lessee") of which the Addendum is made part, is hereby amended and supplemented as follows: This is a Site Lease Agreement with no Option Period. Rent will begin upon full execution of Agreement. Lessee shall finance the purchase and installation of a new lighting facility on the Property, consisting of one monopole (the "Monopole") to attach up to nine (9) panel antennas which shall be part of Lessee's Communication Facilities and lighting fixtures suitable for athletic field lighting, as detailed on Exhibit C attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Lessee shall be responsible for the construction of the monopole. The parties shall reasonably coordinate the location and installation of the field lighting on the Monopole. Lessee shall finance the purchase and installation of two (2) additional lighting facilities on the Property (the "Light Structures"), which shall also be detailed on Exhibit C. The parties shall reasonably coordinate the location and installation of the Light Structures. Lessor shall be responsible for the selection and installation of the Light Structures. Lessor and Lessee agree that the presumed development cost of the Light Structures and athletic field lighting for the Monopole to be financed by the Lessee is ~ Upon termination of the lease, Lessee agrees to remove all antennas, cables, wires, equipment stations, equipment pad/rack and any other associated communications equipment within 90 days. the first twenty years of the Lease Lessor shall reimburse Lessee for the cost of the construction, purchase and installation of the above-mentioned lighting, less the fair market value of the rent which Lessee would have owed up to the date of the termination. Page 8 ........ i .... ,1[, ][ Ill For Minnesota Only SIGNATURES: LESSOR: BY: ITS: Fed Tax ID or SSN: ATTEST: LESSEE: BY: ITS: U S WEST Wireless, L.L.C. C Page 9 06/02/98 12:23 FAX - CITY OF MOUND BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATIOIq OO2 CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound. MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600 Fax: 472-0620 DESCRIPTION OWNE~ CONTRACTOR ARCHITECT &/OR ENGINEER CHANGE DP USE Subjec{ Address 5600 ~ Mound, MN 55364 I~Us~nes$ Name/Tennan= US WEST W~_~.~..eless Subdi~sion ~ock Pla~ ~ Name ~ OR~ chOO[ D~s~. No. 277 Addres~~ Company Name Contact Person Address Phone (I-I) .License Name Address Phons iH) PROM: No h n e of use is ro osed TO: (M) DESCRIBE WORK: i ~ Ii ht ole at memorial field and re 1~ · ' foot steel ole suitable for ath~iD__~.~L~_~ t le hone antenna. VALUATION OF WORK: VALUE APPROVED: SEeARATE PERMITS ARE RE(~UIRED FOR E].~CTRICAL. ~UMBING. "~NG. V~NG OR ~R CONOI~ONiNG. ~ERMITS ~ECQME NULL ~0 VD O I~ WOR~ OR CONS~U~ON A~O~Z~ IS NO~ ~R A ~ERIO0 O~ 180 DAYS AT ~y ~ME A~ C0MM~c ~ WORK IS COMM~CED. ~ ~IN 180 ~AY$. OR IF CON~RUC~ON OR WORK ]$ SUSR~0ED OR ASANOON~ LESS ~AN ~IR~ E ~ ~EE ~T~ C ~AB~ING TO ~E R = = SE. THE (30) BU~NESS DAY DM~ON OF ~E W - ~QN~L. $A~SFAC~ON ...... '--~ r~U. -- ......... ~- '"~ ~T~SION $HA~ ~ REQUESTED ~-= un ~u~ ~W REG~NG rn~e~.~-.,'-- ~ ~"'" "~ OF A 9~MIT DOES NOT PR~e-u ~ ~.ve ~u U~UINAN~ ...... u~;~ua U, ~E P~FORM~CE OF CONDUCTION ..... E TO ~VE AU~ORI~ TO ~O~T; OR C~CEL TH PRINT APPLICANT'S NAME APPUCANT'S SIGNATURE ~ATE ~/~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~/~/~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ (?FFICE USE ONLY : / III//////11///I///I/1111///I///I////I ) SPECIAL CONDITIONS & COMMENTS ' ////////////////////////////////l/ [ RECEIVE[3 SY/DATE': ', :: . . . OCCUPANCY GROUP / OIV: STORIES MAX OCC~ANT I.OAQ ZONING RRE SPfllNKL~S REQUIRED? CITY ~IGINEER YES I NO I~JBUC WORKS ~OVE~ BY/DATE :. ~SES~NG COI~ED U S WEST Wireless, L.L.C. 426 Norlh Fairview Avenue Room 101 St. Paul, MN 55014 City Of Mound Building Department June 2, 1998 Re: US WEST site MIN203 - Westonka School District No. 277 City Of Mound, The US West RF department is proposing to place a PCS site on a light pole located at Memorial Field, 5600 Lynwood Blvd., Mound, MN. The antenna center line will be at 110ft above the ground level. The site objective is to provide coverage to all surrounding commercial and residential areas within 4 Kin. It will also provide coverage to a 5 mile section of Shoreline Rd, HY1 l0 and HWY125. The absence of this proposed site will create a hole ( gap ) in our coverage which will cause technical failures in the service; dropped calls, call failures, and call block are some of the symptoms which are predicted to exist as a result. Building the site at the proposed location will assure continuous coverage to the surrounding community and to all traffic that passes through the city of Mound. Should you have any questions or require additional information, please call me at (612)642-6039. Thank you, RF Engineer Access2TM Advanced PCSTM Paging Services 3100 U S WEST Communications Group 426 North Fairview Room 101 St. Paul, MN 55104 Wireless June 3, 1998 City of Mound Building Department 5341Maywood Road Mound, MN55364 Zoning Application for a PCS Facility at 5600 Lynwood Boulevard, Mound - Memorial Field. US West Site No. MIN-203 Dear City of Mound: This letter is designed to comply with the application procedures for a Zoning Permit that will allow the construction of a Personal Communication Services (PCS) facility at 5600 Lynwood Boulevard, Mound. The proposal involves removing an existing light pole at Memorial Field, and placing a new light structure at the same location. A PCS antenna array and new ballfield lights will then be placed on the new tower. Please review the enclosed computer-generated rendering of the proposed light pole replacement. (Exhibit "A"). INTRODUCTION US West is licensed by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and is scheduled to deploy a wireless PCS system for Mound and the surrounding area in the summer of 1998. (See Exhibit "B"). To fulfill its mandate from the FCC, US West will be developing a grid of antenna throughout its service area. These antenna must be spaced, depending on certain technical and geographical variables, at intervals approximately one (1) to two (2) miles from each other and at a height of approximately seventy-five (75) to one hundred twenty (120) feet above the ground. The intent of the deployed system will be to provide wireless services to all Twin City area communities. In order to meet the objective of seamless coverage, a PCS site is currently needed in Mound near the intersection of Shoreline and Commerce. (See Exhibit "C"). PCS TECHNOLOGY PCS is a new wireless telecommunication service that is personalized to the individual. PCS technology will allow a variety of telecommunication services, including local and long distance telephone services, portable telephone and facsimile transmission capability, caller identificatiOn and voice mail services to name just a few features. The types and features of services that each subscriber desires will be customized to his and her individual needs. Telephone numbers in use in PCS handsets will be assigned specifically to an individual user with a Personal Communications Number (PCN). A PCN will allow the network to track the individual at all times. PCS utilizes the latest digital technology. This will facilitate improved call clarity, but more importantly, clean data communication when using a fax or modem. A PCS customer will be able to communicate through voice and data simultaneously using the same handset without interference to either activity. In addition, computer users will be able to run applications and retrieve data faster from remote locations using their handset. PCS technology also assures less static and fading than current cellular technology and results in fewer dropped calls. PROPOSED USE We propose to remove an existing light pole on the east side of Memorial Field and install a new 120' light pole, suitable for athletic field lighting and wireless telephone antennas. A total of six (6) wireless PCS antennas will be placed on the new light standard at 120' above ground level. Each antenna is approximately 5" wide x 42" high x 4" thick. The antennas will not extend above the height of the pole and will be placed close to the pole to reduce visibility. New stadium lights as specified by the Westonka School District will then be reattached to the monopole at 71' above ground level. (See Exhibit "D" - Site Plans) No signs or additional lighting is planned for the proposed US PCS facility. The monopole color will be chosen to match the other new light standards proposed for Memorial Field. (Three additional steel light standards (used only for lighting) will be installed at a lower height. The foundation for the light pole will be a concrete caisson design. The tower steel and foundation will be designed following specifications as determined by the tower manufacturer. The specifications take into account soils, local wind loading guidelines and the type of equipment to be attached to the antenna/light support system. A safety factor is included in the design parameters resulting in a pole that typically exceeds local building code requirements. The replacement monopole will be located on the fifteen (15) yard line of the football field. An unmanned equipment rack will be situated at the base of the monopole. Placed on the equipment rack will be two (2) or three (3) small equipment cabinets used to link the PCS antennas to the telephone network. (See Exhibit "E"). Fencing will be installed to prevent trespassing. Drainage of the site will not be changed. The site will require a single-phase two hundred (200) amp electrical service and a T1 telephone for utilities. Finally, upon any cessation of operation, US West Wireless will remove its telecommunication facilities (except for the pole that will still be utilized by the School District for field lighting) within 90 days. (See Exhibit "F"). The proposed US West monopole is part of a joint venture between the Westonka School District NO. 277 and US West to upgrade the lighting system at Memorial field and to provide PCS service to the City of Mound. (School District and US West have a signed lease agreement). (See Exhibit "G" - Property Owners Authorization). The existing lighting system at Memorial Field (eight wood poles about 50' above ground level) is severely outdated. In order to hold night activities in the future, a new lighting system was necessary. BENEFITS TO COMMUNITY This site will enhance public safety and welfare because it will enable US West to bring new Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA) cellular technology to the area. CDMA, which did not exist four years ago, is now considered the leading wireless access technology in the industry. The ability to transmit data such as fax, paging and computer data transmission will open a whole new way of communicating by business, individuals and government services. Police can use CDMA cellular fax machines as part of their drug enforcement program to obtain immediate search warrants when illegal activity is observed without leaving the scene. Firefighters can receive faxed blueprints of a building in route to fight fires more safely. Ambulances can use it to transmit vital data to emergency rooms, which allow the emergency rooms to be better prepared to receive injured accident victims. Motorists will have greater flexibility of wireless phone choices, which will allow them more security in placing emergency calls as needed. The question is often asked if the operation of a wireless antenna willaffect home radio and television reception. The use of the frequency spectrum is tightly controlled by the FCC. The CDMA cellular system is operated in the 1900 MHz range. This is a higher frequency on the radio spectrum than home radio and television frequencies. This is important because higher frequency users can not interfere with lower frequency users. Since 1984, over 15,000 cellular antennas have been erected across the United States, and there have been no documented instances of interference with home entertainment equipment. ZONING REQUIREMENTS The proposed PCS site is located at 5600 Lynwood Boulevard, Mound. The property is owned and operated by the Westonka School District. The proposed use is merely an extension of the existing football field lighting system at Memorial Field. Moreover, replacement of a light standard at this site will be visually unobtrusive and have minimal impact on neighboring properties and will allow for the development of personal wireless service to serve Mound. The use as conditioned will not impede future development in the area. Special arrangements need not be made to accommodate access to the site. The proposed use will cause no traffic congestion or interference with traffic on the surrounding public streets. Site visits will be rare once the monopole/antenna/lights have been installed. Parking will not be an issue because site visits will be infrequent and of limited duration. The site will have adequate utilities for the use as conditioned and adequate access is provided to the site. Each US West antenna site will be registered with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). US West monopoles meet all ANSI/TIA/EIA-222E and Uniform Building Code Standards. US West monopoles are designed to withstand the highest wind speeds, snow and ice loads. The proposed use requires electric and telephone service, both of which are available and ample for US West needs at this site. US West will pay for all costs of actual electric and telephone services used at the site. US West hopes this correspondence and enclosures address all issues. Should you have additional questions regarding the attached information please contact us at 612/642-6042. Thank you for your time and consideration of this application. Respectfully, Scott Hoelscher Site Administrator US West Wireless (- ,I, U S WEST Communications Group 426 North Fairview Room 101 St. Paul, MN 55104 Wireless June 4, 1998 City of Mound Building Department 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 b'4 .. ~ Zoning Application for a Personal Communication Services (PCS) Facility at 5600 Lynwood Boulevard, Mound. US West Site # MIN203 Dear City of Mound: Please find enclosed an application submittal packet for a permit to construct a communication antenna support system at 5600 Lynwood Boulevard, Mound. Strictly adhering to the Telecommunications Antenna and Tower ordinance checklist, the following is enclosed: Required Submittal Information Completed Application Written Description of Proposed Use Rendering of Proposed Light (Exhibk "A") Proof of FCC License (Exhibit "B") Need for Tower at Proposed Site (Exhibit "C") Site Plan (Exhibit "D") 1. Vicinity Map 2. General Site Plan 3. Enlarged Site Plan 4. Elevation Plan Rendering of Equipment Cabinets (Exhibit "E") Tower Removal (Exhibit "F") Property Owners Authorization (Exhibit "G") If you require any further information or have any questions please do not hesitate to call me at 642-6042. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Scott Hoelscher Site Administrator US West Wireless 2705-1 NORTH SCALE 1" = 100' MI I EIXS~NG LIGHT POLE, PROPosED MONO-POLE LOCATION. ELEV.= 947.26 N-203 634.37 x " 450.00 S82%6' 53"W SURVEY FOR: U.S. WEST WIRELESS PROPERTY ADDRESS: .5600 Lyowood Boulevard, Mound, Minnesota. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Beginning at a point In the North line of the South 1/2 of the Northeast 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 distant 458 feet West from the Northeast corner thereof; thence. West to a point 200 feet East from the Northwest Corner thereof; thence, South to the Northwest corner of Lot 30. Lynwold Pork Lake Minnetonka; thence. East to the Northwest corner of Lot 21, Ly~wold Park Lake Minnetonka; thence, North alan9 the West line of sold Lot 21 extended to a point dtetont 225 feet South from the North line of the South 1/2 of the Northeast I/4 of the Southeast 1/4; thence. East to a point distant 458 feet West from the · East line thereof; thence, North to the point of beginning. CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that this map was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor under the lows of the State of Minnesota. Dated this 6th day of May, 1998 . ,~ Joc~ Bolke MXnneaota Ucefleo No. 20281 NOTES: I. ]~e orientation of this bearing system Is based o~ the east line of the SE 1/4 of Section 14, Township 117. R~ge 24 which is assumed to hove o bearing South 03 degrees 08 minutes 32 seconds West. 2, No title work woe furnished for the preporUon of this survey to vertlfy the legal description or the existence of any easements or encumbrances. 3. BENCHMARK: Top nut h)<frcmt In Ihs southwest corner of L)4~wood Boulevard and Commerce Boulevard. (Election m 948.18) 4. Area of the property described hereo~ la 340.7.31 square feet or 7.8221 acres. Lat./Lon. (NAD83), accurate to within one arc-second Lat. = 44'56'22.3' Lan. - 93°40'09,0" EGAN FIELD & NOWAK INC. 7415 WAYZATA BOULEVARD MINNEAP0~S, MINNESOTA SURVEYORS ~.LE: (6,2) ~-~.~7 24BB2R ¥.LOS3NNI~ 'QNflO~ ONILHOI'I (]331_'1 'I-IVg.LOOJ V~NOLS3N~ (3~Q3H3S NOil¥(i~lflOJ 310d 33S1 310/. iO~? ~z z© uJ ,r Z mZc~ 0 Zo~ >- Z 0 0 Z _J 0 EL 0 0 0 u-] jDp~D U'l u-I U'l ~uou~laEt Z w ADLER DR. Z Z IS3/~ ONI>IOO] NOIIVA'--I]3 0 ,9[ ,0 .O-.LL A.q)lYPllXO~ldd¥ V138 'VHd]V) 31Od IH913 ~A3Nj SVNN31N¥ O0~J DNIIHDI'I .0-.~ .O-.O~:t Wireless MIN203 5600 Lynwood Blvd Mound, MN U S WEST Communication,*, Inc. 1999 Broadway Tenth Floor Denver, Colorado 80202 303 294-1613 Marty O. Dlckerson Director Regulator~ Affairs Wireless Group COMMUNICATIONS February, 1997 FCC auctions for the D and E blocks of Personal Communications Services (PCS) spectrum concluded in January. U S WEST Communications has won 53 licenses for a total of $57 million. We have money on deposit with the FCC to cover 20% of our winning bids and will be paying the remainder of the $57 million when the licenses are granted. The applications for those licenses were filed with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) on January 30, 1997, along with applications from all the other winning bidders. We expect that FCC review and processing will take about three months, the same as for the prior PCS auctions. Attached are pages from the FCC's Public Notice, dated January 15, 1997, showing U S WEST Communications as the high bidder in specific markets. U S WEST Communications is committed to providing wireless services. example of our commitment, we have had an experimental license in the Boulder, Colorado area since 1992 for testing and developing the PCS technology that we intend to deploy. We also have invested significant resources in building a staff to develop, implement, and market wireless services. As an If you have questions about the status of our license applications with the FCC, please call Marty Dickerson, 303-294-1613. attachment million for 222 of the licenses, wMch cover parts of all states, ~id AT&T spokeswoman Ma~ Ireland. In Colorado, the AT&~ licenses cover the same areas as U S West, plus Pueblo. · The FCC requires between three and six companies to offer wireless service in each area so that consumers have choices. Sev- eral other companies bid on Ii- ceases to offer the service m Colo- rado. Wireless phones, often referred to as the "next generation" of Phones following cellular, basically are mobile phones that can hook up with computers, fax mactanes, pa- gers and traditional wired phones. "The sound is clearer than cellu- lar phones and people can't eaves- drop on your conversation because they use digital technology," Man- netti said. Most cellular phones are analog devices. It is relatively easy to eavesdrop or interrupt analog transmissions, be added. ' AT&T n6W,.offers wireless tele- bhone se-w~.'~.e la:any but it not has .become cqmmonplace. The FCC auction means more companies ~ill offer the service and the price will likely drop. U S West plans to offer wireless service in Denver by mid-year, and along the Front Range by year- end. Wireless phones may replace the common two-tiered system of wired home phones and cellular mobile phones, Mannetti said. U S West spokesman Jerry Brown said company officials "feel very good" about the $57 million they paid to provide wireless ser- vice in 53 parts of the country, be- cause it comes out to an average $2.88 per person. Nationally, the average price per person or "price per population," as it is sometimes called, is $3.73, he added. Snagging the licenses is another step toward realizing U S West president Sol Trujitlo's vision of a "one-stop shop" for telephone ser- vices. Last week Trujillo said wire- less service should be available in Colorado tins year. U S West and AT&T aren't the only providers now licensed to pro- vide wireless service in Colorado. The FCC made sure it provided for competition by licensing up to six telephone companies in each area. Sprint, ICG and several other telephone providers were no~l/ ~av~ilahto voctord~v '~'- -' 311.¢ GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT PROPOSED COMMUNICATION TOWER TOWER MIN 203 5600 LYNNWOOD BLVD MOUND~ MN Project No. 41985057 June 10, 1998 Terracon INTRODUCTION The subsurface exploration for the proposed communication tower planned for 5600 Lynnwood Blvd, in Mound, Minnesota, has been completed. As a part of our subsurface exploration, one (1) boring extending to a depth of approximately 30.5 feet below existing grade has been performed at the proposed communication tower site. The purpose of this report is to describe the subsurface conditions encountered in the boring, analyze and evaluate the test data, and provide recommendations regarding earthwork and the design and construction of the foundation for the proposed tower. PROJECT DESCRIPTION We understand the proposed project will include the construction of a 90-foot high monopole communication tower which will be supported on a drilled shaft foundation, The tower loads for this site were unknown at the time this report was prepared. Based upon our experience with similar structures, maximum loads are anticipated to be about 10 kips in compression, 100 kips laterally, and overturning moments of about 300 foot-kips. Grade changes for the proposed site are expected to include only minor cuts and fills, .SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION AND TESTING PROCEDURES The boring was drilled near the staked location using an all-terrain rotary drilling rig equipped with continuous flight hollow-stem augers to advance the borehole, Representative samples were obtained using the split-barrel sampling procedure in general accordance with ASTM Specification D-1586, The split-barrel sampling procedure consists of driving a standard 2-inch O,D. split barrel sampling spoon with a 140-pound weight falling 30 inches. The number of blows required to advance the sampling spoon the last 12 inches of an 18-inch sampling interval is termed the standard penetration resistance value. The standard penetration resistance values are indicated in the appropriate column on the attached boring log. The samples were tagged, sealed and returned to the laborator7 for testing and classification. A field log of the boring was prepared by the drill crew, This log contained visual classifications of the materials encountered during drilling as well as the driller's interpretation of the subsurface conditions between samples. The final boring log included with this 'report represents an interpretation of the field log and includes modifications based on laboratory 3UH.~8.1998 9~01RM US NEST ~IR£L£SS STP M0.206 P.Bx8 Proposed Communication Tower Tower MIN 203 Mound, Minnesota Project No. 41985057 June 10, ~199~ Terracon observation and tests of the samples. The laboratory testing program consisted of performing water content tests on representative soil samples. ^lso, chemical tests including pH, resistivity, and sulfate/sulfide tests were perfon'ned on a composite sample of the native soils present from the O-foot to 5-foot depth. The results of the tests are discussed in the Corrosion Potential section of this report. Descriptfve classifications of the soils indicated on the boring log are in accordance with the enclosed Generar Notes and the Unified Soil Classification System. Also shown are estimated Unified Soil Classification Symbols. A brief description of this classification system is included in the appendix of this report. SITE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS The proposed tower location is planned at the high school football field at .5600 Lynnwood Bivd, in Mound, Minnesota. Specific conditions at the boring location are indicated on the attached boring log. The stratification boundaries shown on the boring log represent the approximate location of changes in soil types; in situ, the transition between materials may be gradual. Conditions encountered at the boring location are summarized below. The boring encountered about 4 inches of root zone material at the ground surface. The surficial materials were underlain by medium to very stiff, sandy lean clay soils with occasional sand and silt seams to the termination depth of about 30.5 feet. WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS The boring was monitored while drilling and after completion to detect the presence and level of groundwater. Groundwater was observed at depths of about 19 to 17 feet at these times in the boring. However, observation of the groundwater level in monitoring wells sealed from the influence of surface water would be required to obtain more accurate groundwater levels on the site. Fluctuations of the groundwater level can occur due to seasonal variations in the amount of rainfall, runoff, and other factors not evident et the time the boring was performed. Perched water could develop at higher levels following periods of heavy or prolonged precipitation. The ~:~a~ US' ~ST ~'~ELES~ STP 'NO.a06 P.4/8 Proposed Communication Tower Tower MIN 20,1 Mound, Minnesota Project No. 41985057 June 10, 1998 Terracon possibility of groundwater level fluctuations should be considered when developing the design and construction plans for the project. ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Site Preparation Site preparation should begin with the removal of the topsoil, as well as any loose, soft or otherwise unsuitable materials from the construction area. The exposed soil that is present after the removal of the topsoil in the construction area should be scarified, moisture conditioned to near the materials optimum moisture content and recompacted. New fill and backfill placed on the site should consist of approved materials which are free of organic matter and debris. Suitable material would consist of either granular material or Iow-plasticity cohesive soil. Low-plaSticity cohesive soil should have a liquid limit of less than 45 percent and a plasticity index of less than 20 percent. Moisture adjustments of the on-site soils should be expected to reach the recommended degree of compaction, Fill should not contain frozen material and it should not be placed on a frozen subgrade. The fill should be placed and compacted in lifts of 9 inches or less in loose thickness. All fill placed below structures or used to provide lateral resistance should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the material's maximum standard Proctor dry density (ASTM D-6.98), All cohesive fill should be placed, compacted, and maintained at moisture'contents within minus 2 to plus 3 percent of the optimum value determined by the standard Proctor test. We recommend the geotechnical engineer be retained to monitor fill placement on the project and to perform field density tests as each lift of fill is placed in order to evaluate compliance with the design requirements. Standard Proctor and Atterberg limits tests should be performed on the representative samples of fill materials before their use on the site, Positive surface drainage should be incorporated into the design of the site. The ground surface around the structure should be sloped to drain away from the tower base. Tower Foundation We understand the tower will be supported on a drilled shaft foundation. Eased on the results of the boring, we have developed the following table to provide design parameters for the design of the tower foundation. 3 JUM.22.199~ 9:0~AM US WEST WIRELESS STP P,5×8 " Proposed Communication Tower Tower MIN 203 Mound, Minnesota Project No. 41985057 June 10, 1998 Terracon Depth (feet) Soil Description Frost · Below a depth of 1.5 Compressive Skin Friction 275 Allowable End Bearing Pressure (psf} Allowable Passive Pressure 6000 Angle of Internal Friction Cohesion 1000 Ultimate Horizontal Subgrade Reaction (tcf} 10 Foundations can be subject to uplift loading due to frost action and loading. In calculating the shaft resistant from uplift loading, we recommend that 2/3 of the compressive loads be used to provide uplift resistance. The upper 5 feet of soil should be ignored due to the potentia~ affects of frost action. A drilled pier foundation should be designed with a minimum shaft diameter of 30 inches to facilitate cleanout of the excavation. The use of temporary casing should also be anticipated during the pier excavation in order to support the sides of the excavation and/or control groundwater seepage. Care should be taken so that any ex~sfing building foundations and the sides and bottom of the pier excavations are not disturbed during construction. Lateral loads and pier deflections could possible affect nearby footings. The bottom of the shaft should be free of water and loose soil before placing reinforcing steel and concrete, If groundwater is encountered during construction and a sump pump is unable to control the seepage, concrete should be placed using tremie techniques. A concrete slump of at least 6 inches is recommended to facilitate temporary casing removal. It should be possible to remove the casing from a pier excavation dudng concrete placement provided that the concrete inside the casing is maintained at a sufficient level to resist any earth and hydrostatic pressures, if any, outside the casing during the entire casing removal procedure. Tremie placement of concrete should be used if slurry drilling techniques are used, The native soils can contain cobbles and boulders. The number of cobbles and boulders which may obstruct drilling the shaft is unknown. However, some contingency should be provided in project budgeting for removal of obstructions. 4 ..... ~'UM.~Z.1998 9:0~M US'WEST WIRELESS STP M0.~06 Proposed Communication Tower Tower MIN 203 Mound, Minnesota Project No, 4198.~057 June 10, 1998 Terracon Equipment Slabs We understand the equipment slab will be supported on grade. The recommendations provided in the site preparation section of this report should be used to develop suitable subgrade support for the equipment slab. I~ased on the soil and climatic conditions, up to 2 inches or more of frost heave could be experienced. If this amount of movement is not acceptable, then either removal and replacement of frost susceptible material or supporting the slab with footings extending below the frost depth should be considered. For removal ahd replacement, we recommend removing the sandy lean clay to a depth of about 6 feet from below the slab and replacing it with a clean granular material. Alternately, the slab could be supported on trench footings which extend to below the frost depth. The base of trench footings should be cleaned of all loose soil prior to placeme,nt of concrete, Corrosion Protection It appears that Type I Portland cement could be used for this project based on the soluble sulfate content of less than about 25 mg/L. Laboratory tests indicate that the sand soils had a resistivity on the order of 1,500 ohm- centimeters for the 0 to 5 foot. The measured pH of the samples was on the order of 7.8, These values should be used to estimate the corrosion potential of the soils on the site with respect to contact with the underground materials which will be used in constructing the tower. GENEI::~.AL COMMENTS Terracon should be retained to review the final design plans and specifications so comments can be made regarding interpretation and implementation of our geotechnical recommendations in the design and specifications. Terracon also should be retained to provide testing and observation during excavation, grading, foundation, and construction phases of the project. The analysis and recommendations presented in this report are based upon the data obtained from the soil boring performed at the indicated location and from any other information discussed in this report. 'This report does not reflect any variations which may occur across the site, The nature and extent of such variations may not become evident until construction. If 5 JUM.~E.1998 9:0BAM US WEST WIRELESS STP M0.~06 Proposed Communication Tower Tower MIN 203 Mound, Minnesota Project No, 4198S057 June 10, 1998 Terracon variations appear evident, it will be necessar7 to reevaluate the recommendations of this report, The scope of services for this project does not include either spedfically or by implication' any environmental assessment of the site or identification of contaminated or hazardous' materials or conditions, if the owner is concerned about the potential for such contamination, other studies should be undertaken. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of our client for specific application to the project discussed and has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices. No warranties, either expressed or implied, are intended or made. Jn the event that any changes in the nature, design, or location of the project as outline in this report are planned, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report shall not be considered valid unless Terracon reviews the changes, and either verifies or modifies the conclusions of this' report in writing. ....... 9: ~'~RM US WEST WIRELESS STP MO, 206 P, 8x8 LOG OF BORING NO. B-1 Page 1 of 1 CLII~NT ARCHITECT/ENGINEER US WEST COMMUNICATIONS LOCATION 5600 LYNWOOD BLVD PROJECT MOUND, MINNESOTA TOWER MIN 203 SAMPLES TESTS o DESCRtPTIQN ~3 z_' ~ >- c~ ~- ~ GROUND SURFACE ELEV.: ft O ~ ~ ~ ~ · ~ '-' 0,4 4" ROot Zone - HS -  -CL 1 SS' ~8 '13 19.9 '5000 ~ANDY LEAN CLAY TRACE GRAVEL  OCCASIONAL SILT SEAMS ~ HS B~own To Gray Brown, Medium to Very -  Stiff " - CL 2 SS 18 9 16.5 '2000  ~o_L - HS ~.o . - ~ ~ CL 3 SS 16 12 ~4.2 '6000 " ~ HS  ~ -CL 4 SS 14 18 14.1 ~5000 S~DY LEAN CLAY TRACE GRAVEL 20~ ~ OCCASIONAL SAND S~AMS Gray, Stiff ~ HS  to Vew Stiff  -CL 5 SS 18 3~ ~5.3 '4000 25~ ~ : HS -  -CL 6 SS 18 17 14,0 30.5 30-- END OF 6ORIN~ The stratification li~es represent the approximate beundary lines Calibrated Hand between eoll and rock ty~e~: in-eitu, fha transition ma~ be gradual. WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS BORING STARTED 6-2-98 WL ~ 19.00 WD '~ 17.00 Aa ~ ~ BORING C~MpLETED 6-2-98 WL · ~ ~WL . aCM JOB 8 41 SECTION 01000 - PROJECT SUMMARY ge A. SUMMARY OF WORK Furnish all technical and professional services, supervision, materials and equipment (other than materials and equipment specified as furnished by others) and perform all operations necessary and required to prepare land sites and existing building sites for installation of Personal Communications Services (PCS) Base Transmission Stations (BTS). 2. The scope of work will depend upon the types of site installations as listed below and outlined in Exhibit D. Actual contruction work may include variations of the site types as shown on the site-specific design drawings. Outdoor Equipment and Monopoles or Antenna Towers (on land sites) · Outdoor Equipment and Rooftop Antennas (on existing building sites) · Rooftop Equipment and Antennas (on existing.building sites) · Indoor Equipment and Rooftop Antennas (on existing building sites) For information provided by the Contractor and a list of work to be done by others, refer to Exhibit D. END OF SECTION 01000-~. 8/1/97 SECTION 02050 - DEMOLITION PROJECT INCLUDES 1. Existing Structure and Site Demolition where shown to be removed: a. Demolition of identified structures. b. Demolition of paving, curbing, site walls, utility structures, below-grade foundations and site improvements to a minimum necessary depth to avoid conflict with new construction or site work. c. Removal of hollow items or items which could collapse. d. Protection of adjacent site work and existing structures. ~ e. Disconnection, rerouting, capping, and removal of identified or conflicting existing utilities. f. Pollution control during demolition. g. Removal and legal disposal of materials. Selective Demolition: a. Selective demolition of interior partitions, systems, and building components designated to be removed. b. Selective demolition of structures, and components designated to be removed. c. Protection of portions of building adjacent to or affected by selective demolition. d. Removal of abandoned interfering or identified existing utilities and wiring systems. Rerouting of interfering or identified existing utilities and wiring systems. e. Notification to Owner of schedule of shut-off of utilities which serve occupied spaces. f. Removal and legal disposal of materials. END OF SECTION 02050-I 8/1/97 SECTION 02100 - SITE PREPARATION A. PROJECT INCLUDES Protection of existing trees, vegetation, landscaping materials, and site improvements not scheduled for clearing or removal which might be damaged by construction activities. 2. Trimming of existing trees and vegetation as recommended by arborist for protection during construction activities. 3. Clearing and grubbing of stumps, vegetation, debris, rubbish, designated trees, and site improvements. 4. Topsoil stripping and stockpiling. 5. Temporary erosion control, siltation control, and dust control. 6. Temporary protection of adjacent property, structures, benchmarks, and monuments. 7. Protection in-place and temporary relocation, storage and re-installation of existing of fencing and site improvements scheduled for reuse. 8. Watering of designated trees and vegetation during construction activities. 9. Removal and legal disposal of cleared materials. B. PRODUCTS 1. Materials used for tree protection, erosion control, siltation control, and dust control as suitable for specific site conditions. END OF SECTION 02100- 1 8/1/97 SECTION 02200 - EARTHWORK Ao PROJECT INCLUDES 1. Excavation, trenching, filling, compaction, and grading for structures, site improvements, and utilities. 2. Materials for subbase, drainage fill, fill, backfill, and gravel for slabs, pavements, and improvements. 3. Rock excavation without blasting. 4. Supply of additional materials from offsite as required. 5. Removal and legal disposal of excavated materials as required. B. QUALITY ASSURANCE Compaction: a. Under structures, building slabs, steps, pavements, and walkways, 95 percent maximum density, ASTM D 1557, tested in each of compaction layers, at each compaction site, or at least in each 100 cu. yds. of material volume. b. Under lawns or in unpaved areas, 85 percent maximum density, ASTM D 1557. 2. Grading Tolerances Outside Building Lines: a. Lawns, unpaved areas, and walks, plus or minus 1 inch. b. Under pavements, minus 1/2 inch. Grading Tolerance for Fill Under Building Slabs: Plus or minus 1/2 inch measured with 10 foot straightedge. PRODUCTS 1. Subbase Material: Graded mixture of natural or crushed gravel, crushed stone or slag, and natural or crushed sand. 2. Drainage Fill: Washed, evenly graded mixture of crushed stone or gravel, with 100 percent passing a 1-1/2 inch sieve and not more than 5 percent passing a No. 4 sieve. 02200- 1 8/1/97 Backfill and Fill Materials: Satisfactory native or imported soil materials free of' clay, rock or gravel larger than 2 inches in any dimension, debris, waste, frozen materials, vegetation, and other unsuitable materials. Clay shall be limited to no more than 5%. Backfill (Sand) Materials: Satisfactory cohesionless, natural or crushed sand materials free of rock or gravel, debris, waste, frozen .materials, vegetation, and other unsuitable materials. With 100 percent passing a 1/4 inch sieve and not more than 5 percent passing a No. 200 sieve. Gravel Material: Evenly graded mixture of crashed stone or gravel, with 100 percent passing a 1-1/2 inch sieve and not more than 5 percent passing a No. 4 sieve. 6. Geotextile Material: Non-woven fiber material suitable for use under gravel pavement. END OF SECTION 02200 - 2 8/1/97 SECTION 02511 - HOT-MIXED ASPHALT PAVING PROJECT INCLUDES 1. Hot-Mixed Asphalt Paving Over prepared Subbase: a. Roads. b. Parking areas. c. Driveways. d. Walkways. e. Curbs. B. QUALITY ASSURANCE 1. Construction Tolerances: a. Base Course Thickness: Plus 1/2 inch. b. Surface Course Thickness: Plus or minus 1/4 inch. c. Base Course Surface Smoothness: Plus or minus 1/4 inch as measured with a 10 foot straight edge. d. Surface Course Surface Smoothness Plus or minus 3/16 inch as measured with a 10 foot straight edge.. e. Crowned Surfaces: Plus or minus 1/4 inch variance from template. PRODUCTS 1. Asphalt-Aggregate Mixture: Plant-mixed, hot-laid asphalt-aggregate mixture, ASTM D 3515, complying with local DOT and DPW regulations. 2. Prime Coat: 3. Tack Coat: Cut-back asphalt, ASTM D 2027. Emulsified asphalt, ASTM D 977. 4. Herbicide Treatment: Commercial chemical for weed control registered by Environmental Protection Agency and acceptable to authorities having jurisdiction. 5. Lane and Parking Area Marking Paint, White or Yellow Color: Alkyd-resin type, ready-mixed, AASHTO M 248, Type I. END OF SECTION 02511-1 811197 SECTION 02831 - CHAIN LINK FENCES AND GATES A. PROJECT INCLUDES 1. Furnish and install a complete Chain Link Fence and Gates with locks, as shown on the site-specific design drawings and on the typical details and notes. B. PRODUCTS 1. Fabric: a. Material: Galvanized steel, ASTM A 392, Class 2 finish. b. Size: 2 inch mesh, 12 gage steel minimum. Other materials and sizes may be used only after a written approval of the substitution is received from contractor. 2. Framework: Galvanized steel, ASTM F 1083. Gates: Gates shall be of the Swinging type, unless specifically shown on the design drawings as an overhead mounted sliding type, or a cantilevered sliding type. END OF SECTION 02831-1 8/1/97 SECTION 02900 - LANDSCAPE WORK Ao PROJECT INCLUDES 1. Furnish, install, and maintain landscape work as shown on site-specific drawings or as called out in the documents: a. Trees, shrubs, and ground cover. b. Lawns. c. Topsoil and soil amendments. d. Initial maintenance of installed landscape materials. e. Pruning and relocation of existing plant materials. f. Reconditioning existing lawns affected by construction activities. QUALITY ASSURANCE 1. Plants and Trees: The balled and burlaped plants and trees shall be graded to American Standard for Nursery Stock, ANSI zr0.'I. PRODUCTS 1. Plant Materials shall be as shown on site-specific drawings or as called out in the documents and may be any combination of the following: Deciduous trees. Deciduous shrubs. Coniferous and broadleafed evergreen trees and shrubs. Ground cover. Plants. Lawns: Lawn may be any of the following, as approved by the Contractor: Seed, new crop seed mixture, Sod, strongly rooted, 2 years old, Sod plugs and sprigs. Topsoil: Fertile, friable topsoil from offsite, or from site stockpile with additional mixed-in fertile, friable topsoil from local suppliers of topsoil. Soil Amendments: The Soil amendments may be any of the following, as required or indicated in the Laboratory Testing Reports: a. Lime: Dolomitic limestone. b. Aluminum Sulfate: Commercial grade. c. Peat Humus: Finely divided peat. d. Superphosphate: 20 percent available phosphoric acid. e. Sand: Clean, washed sand. 02900-1 8/1/97 f. Perlite: NBS PS 23. g. Sawdust: Rotted sawdust free of chips and stones. h. Manure: Rotted stable manure. i. Commercial Fertilizer: Neutral character for plant materials and lawns. j. Mulch: Ground or shredded pine bark mulch. Landscape Materials: The landscape materials may be .any of the following, as shown on the site-specific drawing or called out in the documents: a. Gravel: Water-worn gravel. b. Anti-Erosion Mulch: Seed-free salt hay or threshed straw. c. Anti-Dessicant: Emulsion type, film-forming. d. Plastic Sheet: Black polyethylene, 8 mils. e. Filtration Fabric: Water permeable fiberglass or pol~propylene fabric. f. Wrapping: Tree-wrap tape. g. Stakes and Guys: New hardwood, treated softwood, or redwood. h. Metal Edging: Commercial steel edging. i. Wood Headers and Edging: All heart redwood or pressure treated southern yellow pine. END OF SECTION 02900-2 8/1/97 C SECTION 16000 - ELECTRICAL MATERIALS AND METHODS A. PROIECT INCLUDES 1. Electrical general installation. B. QUALITY ASSURANCE 1. National Electrical Code "NFPA 70" 2. Electrical Sweep Testing of Coaxial Cables C. PRODUCTS 1. Products and materials are specified in other sections and herein. D. EXECUTION 1. Submittal of bid indicates sub-contractor is cognizant of all site conditions and work to be performed under this contract. Perform all verification, observations, test, and examination of work prior to the ordering of the electrical equipment and actual construction. Sub-contractor shall issue a written notice of all findings to the Contractor listing all malfunctions, faulty equipment and discrepancies. 3. Heights shall be verified with Contractor prior to installation. 4. Drawings are diagrammatic 0nly, follow as closely as possible. 5. Electrical Service: 208VAC, or 240VAC, single phase, 3 wire 100 amp service. 6. Each conductor of every system shall be permanently tagged in each panelboard, pullbox, junction box, switch box, etc. Sub-contractor shall provide all labor, materials, insurance, installation, construction tools, transportation, etc., for a complete and properly operative system energized throughout and as indicated on drawings as specified herein and/or as otherwise required. o All materials and equipment shall be new and in perfect condition when installed and shall be of the best grade and of the same manufacturer throughout for each class or group of equipment. Materials shall meet with approval of the division of industrial safety and all governing bodies having jurisdiction. Materials shall be manufactured 16000-1 8~4~97 in accordance with applicable standards established by ANSI, NEMA, and NBFU. 9. All conduit installed maybe surface mounted unless otherwise noted. 10. Sub-contractor shall carry out his work in accordance with all governing state, county, and local codes and OSHA and NEC. 11. Sub-contractor shall secure all necessary building permits and pay all required fees. 12. Complete job shall be guaranteed for a period of one year after date of job acceptance by owner. Any work, material or equipment found to be faulty during that period shall be corrected at once upon written notification, at the expense of the Sub- contractor. 13. All conduit only (C.O.) shall have a pull wire or rope. 14. All work shall be per installation drawings and details. Provide Contractor with one set of complete electrical "as installed" markups at the completion of the job showing actual dimensions, routings and circuits. 15. All brochures, operating manuals, catalogs, shop drawings, etc., shall be turned over to the Contractor at job completion. 16. Use t-tap connections on all multi-circuits with common neutral conductor for lighting fixtures. 17. All conductors shall be copper. 18. All circuit breakers, fuses and electrical equipment shall have a minimum interrupting short circuit rating of 10,000 A.I.C. Sub-contractor shall verify the Site requirements. 19. The entire electrical installation shall be grounded as required by all applicable codes and NEC. 20. Patch, repair, and paint any area that has been damaged in the course of the electrical work. 21. Penetrations in fire rated walls shall be sealed in accordance with applicable codes. 16000-2 8/4/97 22. Power wire and cable conductors shall be copper #12 AWG minimum unless specifically noted otherwise on drawings. 23. Grounding conductors shall be tinned copper, annealed, and solid or stranded and sized as shown on drawings. 24. Meter socket amperes, voltage, number of phases shall be as noted on the drawings, Manufactured by "Square D Company" or approved equal. 25. All materials shall be UL listed. 26. Conduit Rigid conduit shall be UL labeled galvanized zinc coated with zinc interior and shall be used when installed in or under concrete slabs in contact with the earth, under public roadways, in masonry walls or exposed on building exterior. Rigid conduit in contact with earth shall be 1/2 lap wrapped with Hunts wrap process No. 3. Flexible metallic conduit shall have UL listed label and may be used where permitted by code. Fittings shall be "jake" or "squeeze" type, seal tight flexible conduit. All conduit shall have full size equipment ground wire. Conduit runs shall be surface mounted in ceilings or walls unless indicated otherwise. Conduit indicated shall run parallel or at right angles to the ceiling, floor, or beams. Verify exact routing of all exposed conduit with the Owner prior to installing. No horizontal conduits shall be below 7'-6" Above Finish Floor (A.F.F). No BX or ROMEX cable is permitted. All underground conduit shall be P¥C schedule 40 (unless noted otherwise) at a minimum depth of 30" below grade or 6" below frost line. 27. All electrical equipment shail be labeled with permanent engraved plastic labels. 28. Coordinate the electrical service with the utility company. 29. Upon completion of work, conduct continuity, short circuit and fall of potential ground tests for approval. Submit test reports to the Contractor. Clean premises of all debris resulting from work and leave work in a complete and undamaged condition. 30. Sub-contractor shall coordinate with the utility company for connection of temporary and permanent power to the site. The temporary power and all hookup costs to be paid by Sub-contractor. 16000-3 8/4/97 31. Lightning Protection: Connect lightning rod with down connector to a separate ground rod per detail 520. 32. IEEE Fall of Potential Tests: Ground tests shall be performed as indicated on drawings. A biddle ground ohmer or the method of using two auxiliary ground rods (as described in IEEE standard no. 81-1983, part 1) may be used. The IEEE method requires the use of an ac test current. The auxiliary test rods must be sufficiently far away from the rod under test so that the regions in which their resistance is localized do not overlap. Sub-contractor shall submit a ground resistance test to the Contractor for review and approval.After all the external ground rings are tied together but before the equipment cabinet is tied down, a megger check of the ground system should be done. All efforts shall be made to achieve a 5 OHMS to ground resistance reading. The maximum allowable resistance is 10 OHMS to ground. Where this is not achievable, inform Contractor in writing. 33. Grounding Resistance Test Report: Upon completion of the testing for each site, a test report showing resistance in OHMS with auxiliary potential electrodes at 5 feet and 10 feet intervals until the average resistance starts 'increasing and also note that 10-15 photos must be taken to proof entire external ground ring system before backfill or notify Contractor no less than 48 hours in advance of backfill. Testing shall be completed by Sub-contractor and two (2) sets of test documents are to be bound and submitted within one week of work completion. 34. Coaxial Cable Installation: Coaxial cable size shall be installed as shown on the drawings. The minimum bending radius for the 7/8" and 1 5/8" cable is two feet(2'). Coaxial cable supports. The coaxial cable shall be run in covered cable trays. For short distances the coaxial cable may be on bare runs with supports every four feet(4'), in horizontal runs, and every three feet(3'), in vertical runs. The coaxial cable shall be run inside the monopole and supported from Kellum Grips within the monopole. From the monop01e to the Primary Radio Cabinet, the cable shall be supported in covered cable trays. The coaxial cable shall be supported on open waveguides on structural towers. The coaxial cables shall be sealed where the cables penetrate any rooftop, bulkheads, monopoles, and walls. 35. Coaxial cable gounding: The coaxial cables shall be gounded to a grounding bar at the antennas using the grounding kits as specified on the drawings. The coaxial cables shall be gounded to a grounding bar at the Radio cabinet using the grounding kits as specified on the drawings. The coaxial cables shall be gounded to a grounding bar at the top and bottom of the monopole using the grounding kits as specified on the drawings. The coaxial cables shall be grounded to a ground bar at the bulkheads using the grounding kits as specified on the drawings. 36. Coaxial cable sweep testing: After the installation of the antenna system, the coaxial cables coaxial cables shall be sweep tested up to 2000 Mhz. to determine the 16000-4 8/4~97 acceptability of system return loss, the reflection coefficient, and the VSWR. 37. Grounding Electrode System Grounding Connections a. All underground (below grade) grounding connections shall be made by the "cadweld" process. Connections shall include all cable to cable splices, Tees, Xs, etc. All cable connections to ground rods, ground rod splices, and lightning protection system as indicated. All materials used (molds, welding metal, tools, etc.) shall be by "cadweld" and installed per manufacturer's recommendation and procedures. b. All above grade or interior grounding and bonding conductors shall be reconnected by one hole crimp type (compression) connections for #6 AWG bare copper conductor, and two hole crimp type (compressio.n) connections for #2 AWG bare copper conductor and larger. Mechanical connections, fitting or connections that depend solely on solder shall not be used. AC service electrical ground shall be sized per the NEC with #2 AWG solid tinned copper wire minimum. Service ground wire shall be continous run in an unbroken manner. c. Ground Rods All ground rods shall be 5/8" diameter x 10'-0" long Copperweld" or approved equal, and shall be of the number and at locations indicated on the drawings. Ground rods shall be driven full length vertical in undisturbed earth. All ground rods to be 8' apart unless otherwise noted. d. Ground Bars All ground bars shall be ~A" thick bare copper plate and of size indicated on drawings. Cable Size # 2/0 AWG #6 AWG e. Cables All ground cable shall be standard tinned copper and of size indicated on drawings. The type of cable shall be as follows: Use of Cable Cable Type Stranded Stranded To main ground, i.e., building steel, cold water pipe, or existing ground rod, and for all lightning protection Grounding of Antenna 16000-5 8/4/97 #2 AWG #2 AWG Stranded Green Insulated Solid Cables Indoor Halo Ring Solid Outdoor Ring Grounds, and all equipment, poles and towers f. Ground Ring The ground ring encircling the pad shall be minimum size of #2 AWG bare copper conductor in direct contact with the earth at a depth of not less than 30 inches (min.), or 6" below the frost line. Conductor bends shall have a minimum radius of 8 inches. The halo ground encircling the room shall be minimum size of no. 2 AWG green insulated stranded copper conductor. Bends shall have the minimum bend radii as shown in the details. All external ground rings are to be joined together and all connections must be cadwelded. NO LUGS OR CLAMPs WILL BE ACCEPTED The ground ring encircling the structural members on the rooftop design shall be minimum size of//2 AWG bare copper conductor. Conductor bends shall have a minimum radius of 8 inches with two paths to the main building ground with two paths to the main building ground with #2/0 AWG bare copper conductor. g. Fence/Gate Ground all sections of fence and gate as indicated on drawings. Ground each gate post and comer post. Below grade connections for the ground grid system shall be made by the "Cadweld" process, and installed per manufacturer's recommendations and procedures. h. Cable Tray Ground all sections of the cable tray as indicated on the drawings. END OF SECTION 16000-6 8/4/97 SECTION 16400 - SERVICE AND DISTRIBUTION PROJECT INCLUDES 1. Electrical service and distribution including service entrance, switchboards, low- voltage power switchgear, grounding, transformers, busways, panelboards, overcurrent protective devices, and motor controllers.- 2. Service and Distribution Requirements: The incoming service shall be rated at 100 Amps, single phase, 3 wire, either 208 VAC or 240 VAC. B. PRODUCTS Service Entrance: a. Circuit Breakers shall be rated for a minimum interrupting capacity of 10,000 A.I.C. b. Fuses: Time-delay, fast-acting, current-limiting types. c. Meter Sockets: Acceptable to local utility company. d. Switches: Heavy-duty safety switches with NEMA Type 1 enclosure. Grounding: a. Grounding Equipment: UL 467; copper conductors; NEC Table 8 wire and cable conductors; connectors. b. Grounding Electrodes: Copper-clad steel ground rods; copper plate electrodes. END OF SECTION 8/4/97 --*/¥0 CITY OF MOUND -ZONING J SURVEY ON FILE? YES YARD oUSE ......... ------------- :RONT lq N S E W :RONT ------------ N S E W N S E W 15' N S E W REAR -- 50' N S E W \KE lO' OR 30' OF BLUFF INFORMATION SIIEET ZONING DISYRICT, LOT SIZE/WIDT}I: ~X X0,O00/6 Bz '7,500/0 R'IA 6,000/40 B2 20,000/80 R2 6,000/40 B3 10,000/60 R2 3.4,000/80 R3 SEE ORD. I1 30,000/100 ExISTING/I'ROPOSED EXISTING LOT SIZE: LOT WIDTH: LOT DEP'I'tI: VARIANCE 5 GAR. AGE, SIIED ..... DETACtlED BUILI)INGS N S E W FRONT FRONT ;IDE ;IDE REAR LAKE TOP OF Ill.UFF N S E W N S E W N S E W N S E W N sEW 4' OR 6' 4' OR 6' 4' 50' 10' OR 30' ....I)ATED: ( ONkORMING. , , / t - ~ _.. ~ }~ --~ . .... :.-r.--.nation contact the City of Mound ~ ..... -_ .~ ,~ o C v Of M }t Id Zoning Ordinance. pot iuiuler m~w~ · Ilu~ Zoning lnfounaUon Shccl onl,' summarizes a pmtwn ol Planning Department ;5' ' 53) ) (~2) ( THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY 31q$ Affidavit of Publication CITY OF MOUND NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON IMPROVEMENT OF NORWOOD LANE NOTICE, is hereby g~ven that the City Council of the City of Mound will meet in the CHall Council Chambers, at 5341 ~od Road at 7:30 P.M. on Tuesday, ,{ 11 1998, to consider an improvement of Norwood Lane between Shoreline Drive (County Road 15) and Bartlett Blvd., pursuant to Minnesota Statutes. Sections 429.011 to 429.111. The area proposed to be assessed State of Minnesota, County of Hennepin. Bill Holm, being duly sworn on oath, says that he is an authorized agent and employee of the publisher of the newspaper known as THE LAKER, Mound, Minnesota, and has full knowledge of the facts which are stated below: A.) The newspaper has complied with all the requirements constituting qualifications as a qualified newspaper, as provided by Minnesota Statute 331A.02, 331A.07, and other applicable laws, as amended. B.) The printed Public Hearing On Improvement of Norwood Lane which is attached was cut from the columns of said newspaper, and was printed and published once each week for 1 successive weeks: for such improvement is both sides of Norwood Lane between Shoreline Drive (County Road 15) and Bartlett Blvd. The estimated cost of the improvement is $63,600.00. Such persons as desire to be heard with reference to the proposed improvement will be heard at this meeting. Francene C. Clark, CMC City Clerk (Published'in The Laker Aug. 1, 1998) It was first published Saturday the 1 ,day of August 1998 , and was thereafter printed and published every Saturday, to and including Saturday, the .. day of 19 ~; / ~'~¢"~1/A"ut%ori~d Agent Subscribed and sworn to me on this 1 dayol August ,1998 / By: [/:'~, KRiSTI HOLM , · 't '(. ~ -/ -, , - , (1) Lowest classified rate paid by commerci¢ ~ for comparable space: $12.90 per inch. (2) Maximum rate allowed by law for above ma~er: $12.90. (3) Rate actually charged for above ma~er: $7.19 per inch. Each additional successive week: $5.14. RESOLUTION NO. 89-77 RESOLUTION AMENDING STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES FOR DEFERRAL OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS BECAUSE OF HARDSH/P FOR SENIOR CITIZENS WHEREAS, the state legislature has enacted MSA 435.193 to 435.195, which authorizes a city to defer the collection of special assessments for homestead property owned by a person 65 years of age or older for whom it would be a hardship to make payments; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that this law should be implemented by the City of Mound for all special assessments to be hereinafter levied by Mound, and that the City Attorney is authorized and directed to ask for an opinion of the Attorney General as to the legality of making this policy applicable for special assessments which have been previously levied. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota: 1. Persons 65 years of age or older who reside on and own homestead property may apply to defer special assessments levied by the City of Mound. 2. Application for deferred assessments shall be on forms prescribed by the County Auditor and such other information as is determined necessary by the City Manager, City Clerk and City Treasurer to make their certifications as set forth in paragraph 3. 3. The City Council will approve deferred assessments for property owners who reside in a household which has a gross income of less than $12,500. The City Manager, City Clerk and City Treasurer are hereby authorized and directed to review income data and to certify to this Council that the property owner qualifies as a hardship case under the aforementioned criteria. Income tax returns and other private data may be reviewed by said city officers to determine that the property qualifies for a deferred assessment but said income information shall not be kept on file as a public record and said officials are directed to protect the privacy of applicant"s personal financial affairs. 4. After City Council approval of the application for the deferral, the City Clerk shall file a notice with the County Auditor thereof setting forth the amount of special assessments being deferred. The County Auditor shall file a copy of said notice with the County June 27, 1989 Recorder pursuant to M.S.A. 435.194. All special assessments deferred under the provisions of M.S.A. 435.193 to 435.195 shall bear interest at the rate of 8% per annum on the unpaid balance. The notice to the County Auditor shall specify the interest rate and all such interest and principal shall be collected when the deferred assessment is payable under the provisions set forth hereafter in paragraph 5. 5. The option to defer the payment of special assessments shall terminate and all amounts accumulated plus interest shall become due upon the occurrence of any of the following events: a. The death of the owner, provided that the spouse is otherwise not eligible for the deferment. The surviving spouse shall file a new application with the City Manager, City Clerk and City Treasurer. If the property is still eligible for 'deferment, they shall so note in the city records and the matter need not be referred to this Council. b. The sale, transfer or subdivision of the property or any part ther~f. c. The property for any reason loses its homestead status. d. The City Council shall determine that there is no hardship and shall require immediate or partial payment. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Jensen and seconded by Councilmember Jessen. The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: Jensen, Jessen, Johnson and Smith. The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: none. Councilmember Ahrens was absent and excused. Mayor Attest: City Clerk Engineering · Planning · Surveying Preliminary Engineering Report Norwood Lane for The City of Mound July 1998 15050 23rd Avenue North · Plymouth, M/nnesota· 55447 phone 612/476-6010 · fax 612/476-8532 e-mai/: mfra@mfra, com SCHEDULE NORWOOD LANE STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS Council Meetin~ July 2g, 1998 1. Resolution Ordering Preparation of Report on Improvement and Preparation of Plans. a. Adopted at June 23, 1998 Council meeting. Resolution receiving Preliminary Engineering Report and Calling Hearing on Improvement. a. Set public hearing for August 11, 1998. b. Published to Laker August 1 st and 8th. (Must be to the Laker by 10:00 a.m. Wednesday, July 29, 1998.) c. Mailed notice must be sent by Friday, July 31, 1998. o Resolution Approving Plans and Specifications and Ordering Advertisement for Bids. a. Set bid date for August 11, 1998. b. Published in Laker August 1, 1998. (Must be to the Laker by 4:30 p.m. Tuesday, July 28, 1998.) c. Published in Construction Bulletin July 31, 1998. (Must be to Bulletin by 3:00 p.m. on Tuesday, July 28, 1998.) Council Meeting: August 11, 1998 1. Public heating on improvement. 2. Resolution Declaring Cost to be Assessed and Ordering Preparation of Proposed Assessment. Resolution for Hearing on Proposed Assessment. a. Set public hearing for September 8, 1998. b. Published in Laker on August 22, 1998. (Must be to the Laker by 4:30 p.m. on August 18th*.) c. Mailed notices must be sent on Friday, August 21, 1998+. * Need total amount of proposed assessment for published notice and + Specific amount for individual property in mailed notice Council Meeting; September 8, 1998 1. Public hearing on proposed assessments. 2. Resolution Adopting Assessment. 3. Resolution Accepting Bid and Award Contract. a. This resolution would be adopted only if no written objections are received before or at the public hearing on the proposed assessments. b. If a written objection is filed at or before the public hearing, the person or persons aggrieved must within 30 days appeal to District Court by serving notice upon the mayor or clerk. The notice of appeal must be filed with the clerk of the District Court within ten days after service on the City. e 5main:\8614:\councmtg ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS CITY OF MOUND NORWOOD LANE STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS Sealed proposals will be received by the City Clerk until 11:00A.M., Tuesday, August 11, 1998 at the City Offices, at which time they will be publicly opened and read aloud, for the furnishing of all labor, equipment and materials to construct Norwood Lane, including installation of City utilities. The estimated quantifies of major items are: 250 LF - 8" sanitary sewer, 480 LF - 6" DIP watermain, 600 LF - concrete curb & gutter, 350 TN - Class 5,200 TN - bituminous paving and related work. 1998. The bids will be considered by the City Council at their meeting on Tuesday, August 11, All proposals shall be addressed to: Fran Clark, City Clerk City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 and shall be secui'ely sealed and shall be endorsed on the outside with the statement "Norwood Lane Street and Utility Improvements" and shall be on the Bid Form included in the specifications for the project. Copies of the plans and specifications and other proposed Contract documents are on file with the City Clerk and at the office of McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc., 15050 23rd Avenue North, Plymouth, Minnesota 55447. Plans and specifications for use in preparing bids may be obtained at the offices of the Engineer upon payment of $20.00 per set (includes MN sales tax), which is NON-REFUNDABLE. Individual sheets of the plans and sections of the specifications may be purchased at the rate of four dollars ($4.00) per sheet (includes MN sales tax) of plans and twenty-five cents ($0.25) per page (includes MN sales tax) of specifications, which is NON- REFUNDABLE. Each bidder shall file with his bid a cashier's check, certified check, or bid bond in an amount of not less than five (5) percent of the total amount of the bid. No bid may be withdrawn within sixty (60) days after the bids are opened. The City reserves the right to reject any and all bids and waive any informalities or irregularities therein. City of Mound, Minnesota Robert Polston, Mayor ATTEST: Fran Clark, City Clerk Engineedng · Planning · Surveying July 23, 1998 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 SUBJECT: Proposed Utility and Street Improvements Norwood Lane MFRA #8614 Dear Mayor and Council Members: As requested, enclosed is a Preliminary Engineering Report for the proposed utility and street improvements on Norwood Lane. ' If you have any questions or need additional information regarding this report, we will be pleased to discuss it further at your convenience. Very truly yours, McCOMBS FRANK ROOS ASSOCIATES, INC. John Cameron, City Engineer JC:pry Enclosure c:Xmain:\8614\feasibility7.22 31, l 15050 23rd Avenue North · Plymouth. Minnesota · 55442' phone 612/476-6010 · fax 612/476-8532 e-mail: mfracCmfra, com GENERAL Nor, rood Lane is a 40-foot wide plat-ted right-of-way that has never been completely improved to the City standards or had utilities installed. During the 1988 reconstruction of County Road 15, the County's contractor, Hardrives, used the six lots along the west side of unimproved Norwood Lane as a storage yard. They installed storm sewer from CSAH 15 to the existing main in the short section of Norwood Lane that was improved as part of the 1980 street improvement project. Approximately the south 160 feet has concrete curb and gutter with bituminous paving. Hardrives graded the entire area; including the street portion as part of their restoration after completion of the County work. They also installed a gravel base for the future street construction. Neither sanitary sewer or watermain were installed at that time. UTILITIES As previously mentioned, there are no City utilities in Norwood Lane except for 'storm sewer. Both sanitary sewer and watermain will need to be installed before any street improvements can be done. The sanitary sewer manhole located at County Road 15 has a 20-foot stub to the south, which was installed during the County's reconstruction project in 1988. This stub can be used to extend a new main south approximately 250 feet and provide service for the undeveloped property on both the east and west sides of the proposed street. A new six inch watermain will need to be installed from the existing six inch main located behind the curb in CSAH 15 and connected to the six inch watermain in Bartlett Boulevard, which is located behind the north curb line. The proposed watermain is not required for water service at the south end of Norwood Lane, but we are recommending it be looped to eliminate another dead end main. There are existing hydrants, both at CSAH 15 and Bartlett Boulevard; therefore, no additional hydrants will be required. STREET DESIGN As previously mentioned. Hardrives had installed a gravel base in 1988; however, most of this material has become contaminated by the underlying soils. We are recommending that any obvious unstable areas be subcut and recompacted, and then test rolled under the supervision of a Soils Engineer. The City's standard street section could then be used, a cc~py which is included in this report. We are recommending the use ofgeotextile fabric because underlying soils in this area are not the best quality for street construction. We are also recommending that the existing section of Norwood Lane receive a minimum one-inch bituminous overlay as part of the new construction. Installation of the watermain loop will require removal and replacement of a portion of the existing pavement. Any other areas of existing bituminous showing signs of failure should also be repaired before the overlay is installed. It would not be necessary to replace any of' the existing concrete curb and gutter. The curb installed in the new section should be the City's standard surmountable concrete curb and gutter. The existing catch basins were installed at a pre-designed low point and will collect all run- off from the new street. COST ESTIMATE The estimated cost of the utility and street construction as described herein is $63,600. A detailed breakdown of the costs is included with this report. The estimated costs are for 1998 construction and include 30 percent for engineering, legal, fiscal, and administrative costs. I I I I i I i I I ! I I I I COST ESTIMATE UTILYT AND STREET CONSTRUCTION NORWOOD LANE UTILITIES Ite___~m 8" PVC Sewer, 0-8' Depth Manhole 8" x 4" Wye 4" PVC Sewer Service Granular Foundation Material Contingencies (10%) Total Estimated Construction Cost Engineering, Legal, Fiscal, and Administrative Cost Total Estimated Cost (Sanitary Sewer) Watermain 6" DIP Watermain Fittings 6" Gate Valve 1" Water Service 1" Copper Service Pipe Connect To Existing Watermain Bituminous Removal Bituminous Replacement Contingencies (10%) Total Estimated Construction Cost Engineering, Legal, Fiscal, and Administrative Cost Total Estimated Cost (Watermain) Quantity 250 LF 1 EA 13 EA 37O LF 100 TN 480 LF 400 LF 2 EA 13 EA 350 LF 2 EA 210 SY 65 TN STREETS Subgrade Preparation Gravel Base Class 5 100% Crushed Quarry Rock Bituminous Base Mn/DOT 2331 Type 31 Bituminous Wear Mn/DOT 2331 Type 41 Fabric Bituminous Overlay Mn/DOT 23331 Type 41 Concrete Curb & Gutter Adjust Catch Basins Black Dirt Seed and Mulch Contingencies (10%) Total Estimated Construction Cost Engineering, Legal, Fiscal, and Administrative Cost Total Estimated Cost (Streets) 1 LS 350 TN 100 TN 70 TN 1,000 SY 35TN 600 LF 4 EA 120 CY 0.2/AC Total Estimated Cost of Utilities Total Estimated Cost of Streets Total Estimated Project Cost Unit Price $ 13.00/LF $1,200.00/EA $ 60.00/EA $ 7.00/LF $ 9.00/TN $ 14.00/LF $ 1.50/LB $ 450.00/EA $ 125.00/EA $ 8.00/EA $ 300.00/EA $ 4.00/SY $ 28.00/TN $1,000.00/LS $ 10.00/TN $ 28.00/TN $ 30.00/TN $ 1.50/SY $ 50.00/TN $ 9.00/LF $ 150.00/EA $ 5.00/CY $3,000.00/AC Estimated Total $ 3,250 $ 1,200 $ 780 $ 2,590 $ 900 $ 880 $ 9,600 $ 2.900 $ 12,500 $ 6,720 $ 6OO $ 900 $ 1,625 $ 2,80O $ 600 $ 84O $ 1,820 $ 1.595 $ 17,500 $ 5.200 $ 22,700 1,000 3,500 2,800 2,100 1,500 1,750 5.400 600 6OO 600 1,950 21,800 6.600 28,400 35,200 28,400. 63,600 I ASSESSMENTS It has been the City's policy to assess most of the cost of any street improvement to the benefiting properties. When the large reconstruction projects were done in the late 70's and early 80's. the City contributed 1 mil. which calculated out to approximately 1.5 percent of the total cost of the project. In 1976, the City adopted a street improvement assessment policy Under Resolution No. 76-77. A copy of this policy is included in this report. The City does not have a policy in-place which covers utility improvements. From what we can determine, there has not been any utility projects assessed since the original sanitary sewer was installed in the 60's. We are suggesting that this project be assessed to the benefiting properties as follows: o The City's share of the project is proposed to be $5,310, which is the additional cost to loop the watermain through to Bartlett Boulevard. Assess the developer of Lots 1 through 6, Block 3, Shirley Hills Unit A 51 percent of the total project cost, less the City's share. This amount would be $16,140 for the utilities and $13,590 for the street improvement or a total proposed assessment of $29,730. The remaining amounts would be assessed to the vacant property on the east side, Lots 12 through 17, Block 2, Shirley Hills Unit A and Lot 7, Block 3, Shirley Hills Unit A, which is on the west side. If the remaining 49 percent of each of the utility and street costs are assessed on a per lot basis, the charge could be $4,080/per lot. We are suggesting the per lot method to assess these vacant lots, rather then the adopted street assessment policy which uses area, unit and frontage for the following reasons: The storm sewer is already existing; therefore, the square footage charge for storm sewer is not applicable; and The lots are very similar in both size and front footage, thus a per lot assessment would be comparable. 315 ' Two of the platted lots still create a unique situation. Lot 7, Block 3 is combined with Lots 8 and 9 as one tax parcel with an existing home located on it. It appears that Lot 7 could possibly be divided from the other two lots and become a buildable lot, meeting the City's zoning requirement. This being the case, we are proposing to assess this lot for both the street and utility improvements. One option that could be considered would be to defer the utility assessment ($2,214.29) until such time the parcel is divided. The street assessment, $1,865.71, should not be deferred because it is an immediate benefit. Lot 12, Block 2 is also a minor problem because it does not meet the City's minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet in a R-2 zoning district. At the present time it is also a separate tax parcel, but is owned by the same tax payer as owns Lot 13. Including the west half of the vacated alley on the east side of these lots, Lot 12 has 5,635 square feet and Lot 13 has 6,087 square feet. Combined together, they would still be short approximately 278 square feet from 2 - 6,000 square foot building sites. There has been some discussion about deferring all or part of the proposed assessments against the parcels along the east side of the proposed improvements. A suggestion would be to defer only the utility assessment until such time the parcels are subdivided or a building permit is requested. The street assessment could be levied immediately. The following is a breakdown of how the total project cost was divided and the per lot charge calculated. SUGGESTED UTILITY ASSESSMENT Total Estimated Cost Less City Share Total Amount to be Assessed Amount Assessed to Developer (51%) Amount to be Assessed to Vacant Benefiting Property Per Lot Computations $ 35,200.00 $(3,560.00) $ 31,640.00 $ 16,140.00 $ 15,500.00 $15,500.00 + 7 lots = $2,214.29/lot SUGGESTED STREET ASSESSMENT Total Estimated Cost Less City Share Total Amount to be Assessed Amount Assessed to Developer (51%) Amount to be Assessed to Vacant Benefiting Property .Per Lot Computations $ 28,400.00 $(. 1,750.00) $ 26,650.00 $.. 13,590.00 $ 13,060.00 $13,060.00 + 7 lots = $1,865.71/lot TOTAL PROPOSED ASSESSMENT _.Legal Description PI__.~D Utility Assessment Lots 1-6, Block 3 13-117-24 44 0032 $16,140.00 Lot 7, Block 3 13-117-24 44 0033 $ 2,214.29 Lot 12, Block2 13-117-24440026 $ 2,214.29 Lot 13, Block2 13-117-2444 0027 $ 2,214.29 Lotsl4-17, Block2 13-117-24440091 $ 8,857.16 Totals $31,640.03 Street Total Assessment Assessment $13,590.00 $29,730.00 $ 1,865.71 $ 4,080.00 $ 1,865.71 $ 4,080.00 $ 1,865.71 $ 4,080.00 $ 7,462.84 $!6.320.00 $26,649.97 $58,290.00 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS It is the opinion of the Engineer that the proposed project is feasible and can best be accomplished as described herein. ~70 .. 5 L~ NORTHERN RD I~ A 'ri (5O) 1376. 5 ........ L ; ~....DR- v,kC 12-65 (88) ? (43) 144 )44 144 5 15 : GOV'T LOT 8 EXHIBIT A ~.LOT 8 EXHIBIT August 11, 1998 Engineering ° Planning ° Surveying Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 SUBJECT: City of Mound Norwood Lane Street and Utility Construction MFRA//8614 Dear Mayor and Councilmembers: Enclosed is a tabulation of the two bids received today for the street and utility construction of Norwood Lane. The low bid in the amount of $72,920.56, submitted by Northdale Construction is approximately $20,000.00 or 40 percent over the engineer's estimate. These bids are high for much the same reasons as were experienced with Sherwood Drive last year and more recently, Auditors Road. The time of year, workload, and the size of the project have all contributed to the high prices. We are recommending that these bids be rejected and the project rebid next spring for completion in early summer of 1999. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me. Very truly yours, McCOMBS FRANK ROOS ASSOCIATES. INC. John Cameron JC:pry Enclosure e:\main:\8614\norwoodS, i I 15050 23rd A venue North · Plymouth, Minnesota · 55447 phone 612/476-6010 · fax 612/476-8532 e-mail.- mfra@mfra, com '~ 00~00 ~ O0 .... ~i ~1 ~ ~ ~ ~0 ~ ~ ~ ~ =~-- ~ ~ 0 o 0 ~ ~ O~ ~~00 O0 o O' ~' ~ ...... ~,',~m q ~--~~~~ m ~, O0 0~0~ 0~00 ~i ~] q~8o~ om~RRR g~oooo~ooo~ooo ~ OI ~! ~= - .... o~8o ~ oooooooo ~ ooo Ooooo o/ m~m~ ~ ' ' '~6 ..... qomo~88~oooo _~~l ~=-~ o ==b=.o8 - oooo~~ ........ : ~0~0~  ~I~ZJ U~-~ ~ '' ~ ~ O0 00000 ~0 ~ mO 00~ 0 0000~ 0 O0 O~I~DI &N~~ o~ddU~ ~z~ °i~l ~ ~ ' ! ooooooo o I ,~ ooooooo ~ =~ooooo o oooooooooooo 81 ' ~, ....... ~ ~oooooo =ooooo .~ .... qqoooo ooo oo~ ~ ~! mo~o,- ~ ~ ooo~o~6 o oooo oooo o ~ ~1 o~~ ~ ~~oo ~' oooooo66 ....... .= ~ oo~omoog~~o o ii N oooooooooooooooo ~000000000~00000 ~~ ~~ ~>~zzz~z~ l~J ooooooo ooOOooo ooooooooooooooo~ ~D ,~ ~w~ 8z~ / ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ z~o8 z~ W> >- = ~1- ~ ~5 < -> ~<3 ~ t ,~= ~=o~ ~ ~ w>¢~ w m <~m~ w o=m~w<==~=~<~~ 0o~ W I ~,~iO ~ ~,, Dz ~ ~i~OwW~Z 17 .10( SUi~OUNTAIZL£ CI]NC. Ct~ll & CdJTTER (TYP) SCALE IN FEET !! \ \ x, '\\ 10 EXHIBIT R-rl-W VARIES R-13-W SURMOUNTABLE CONC, 14' ! 1/2' MNDOT 2331, TYPE 41. BIT. WEAR 2' MN]}F1T 233~, TYPE 31 ]]IT. BASE 6' ~6GREGATE BASE CLASS 5-IOOX CRUSHED ~UARRY ROCK GEBTEXTILE FABRIC (IF REOUIRED) APPROVED SU~GRADE Designed Scale ',"' · ......... ~ m~ I Plymouth, Minne$oto' 55447 Drown Project No. Ii phone 612/476-6010 TAM 08614 ~":':McCombs Frank Roos fox 612/4 76-8552 Dote Sheet No. ~ ~_~_~or, iate$, Inc, E-Moil: codd~m fro. corn 7/23/98 ~ of ~ Typical Residential Street City of Mound Exhibit D STREET ASSESSMENT POLICY In 1976 the City adopted a street improvement assessment policy under Resolution No. 76-77. The assessment criteria is as follows: a. 30 percent of the total cost to be assessed shall be based on front footage (front and sides). All lots shall be deemed to have at least a minimum of 40 front feet. b. 30 percent of the total cost to be assessed shall be based on the square footage of the property to be assessed. c. 40 percent of the total cost to be assessed shall be based on a unit basis. Since 1976 the City Council has added the following refinements to the policy. 1. Triangle Lots - Lots that form a triangle on two streets are to be assessed for footage on the long side only. 2. Multiple units are assessed on the basis of 3/4 unit per each residential unit in the building (example: a 50 unit apartment is assessed for 37.5 units plus footage plus area). 3. Lots that front on a County Road and a street improvement will be assessed on the same basis as other lots except that the units and square footage will be reduced by 50 percent. 4. Lots that front on a street to be improved and which have previously been assessed for another street improvement project will be assessed for footage only. 5. Lots that have streets on three sides are to be assessed for footage on the long side and the average length of the other two sides. 6. The cost of driveway entrances over 12 feet wide are assessed directly to the property owner. EXHIBIT E SUGGESTED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT Section 320.05 Continuation of Certain Structures constructed on or before April 1, 1976. Subd. 1. Statement of Intent. The City finds and determines that certain structures which were either constructed or placed on lakeshore public commons on or before April 1, 1976, should be permitted to remain subject to the provisions contained or referenced in this Section. The structures ered by this section arc ~m~include buildings (including boathouses) do~, decks, platforms, fences, flagpoles and birdhouse. ("Subject Structure"). Subd. 2.-Mai~n~nce Permit for Subject Structures. No person shall continue to any Subject Structure on lakeshore public commons without first receiving a special maintenance permit from the City Council. Permit applications may be obtained from the city building official. Subd. 3. Criteria for Issuance. The City Council shall issue the special maintenance permit unless it finds any of the following conditions to be present: a. significant safety problems exist which the structure's owner is unable or unwilling to rectify within a reasonable time period; or b. safety hazards exist for which the cost of repair is equal to 50% or more of the fair market value of the structure prior to repair; or u"BD138554 HU200-1 do eo the functional use of the structure is impaired such that restoration to functionality would cost 50% or more of the value of the structure before repair; aesthetic appearance of the structure has become so deficient that a restoration to an acceptable appearance would cost 50% or more of'the .f-air.-mar~ value of the structure before repair. the structure significantly hinders the use of the public commons by others and the owner is unwilling or unable to alleviate the hinderance within a reasonable time. Findings by the City Council on these matters shall be deemed conclusive. Subd. 4. Permit Duration and F~, Permits shall be for a five year period commencing on January 1 of the year of issuance. The fee shall be in an amount as set by the council in Section 510.[$75.00] which is payable in five equal annual installments of $15.00 each. The fn'st annual installment is due at the time of application and subsequent installments are due on or before ~ -1- the last day of February_ of each year during the term of the permit.. In instances in which the permit holder is also the holder of a city dock license, the annual dock license will not be issued until the annual installment has been paid unless the Subject Structure permit holder provides the City with a written statement relinquishing all interest in the Subject Structure and consenting to its removal by the City. Subject Structure permit fees will be placed in a separate account which will be dedicated to expenditures incurred in the administration and enforcement of activities under this Section. C JBD138554 MU200-1 Subd. 5. Transfer of Permit. Permits issued under this section may be transferred by the permittee to third parties who become the owner and occupant of the property primarily benefited by the Subject Structure. Such transfer shall not confer to the transferee any further rights than those held by the transferor at the time of transfer. Requests for transfer shall be made in writing to the City Building Official who shall approve the transfer in writing unless conditions exist which would constitute grounds for action pursuant to subdivision 8 below. ~ppli~ form a~to the City/~mnifying, ~harmle~_~m_g_y~: C y cl pon ed m ' the _ Subd. 6. Conditions for Issuance. The City Council may attach conditions to permits granted under this section. Such conditions may include, without limitation: a. a written agreement, backed with security deemed reasonable by the City Council, providing for the removal of the Subject Structure when it is no longer under permit, and acknowledging the structure owners obligation to remove the structure and/or pay for the cost of doing so. b. A covenant executed by the applicant in form acceptable to the City indemnifying, holding harmless and agreeing to defend the City against any claims based upon the continued maintenance of the Cc, uncR subject Structure. Subd. 7. extent m .......... Repair, Modification and Alteration of Subiect Structure. Except to the inconsistent with the provisions of this Section, the repair, modification or JBD138554 MU200-1 SUGGESTED ORD/NANCE AMENDMENT Section 320.05 Continuation of Certain Structure~ constructed on or before April 1, 1976. Subd. 1. Statement of Intent. The City finds and determines that certain structures which were either constructed or placed on lakeshore public commons on or before April 1, 1976, should be permitted to remain subject to the provisions contained or referenced in this Section. The structures which are covered by this section ~-~ to include buildings (including boathouses) decks, platforms, fences, flagpoles and birdhouse. ("Subject Structure"). Subd. 2. Maintenance Permit for Subject Structures. No person shall continue to maintain any Subject Structure on lakeshore public commons without first receiving a special maintenance permit from the City Council. Permit applications may be obtained from the city building official. Subd. 3. Criteria for Issuance. The City Council shall issue the special maintenance permit unless it finds any of the following conditions to be present: a. significant safety problems exist which the structure's owner is unable or unwilling to rectify within a reasonable time period; or b. safety hazards exist for which the cost of repair is equal to 50% or more of the fair market value of the structure prior to repair; or JBD138554 MU200-1 ICJ. eo the functional use of the structure is impaired such that restoration to functionality would cost 50% or more of the fair market value of the structure before repair; aesthetic appearance of the structure has become so deficient that a restoration to an acceptable appearance would cost 50% or more of the fair market value of the structure before repair. the structure significantly hinders the use of the public commons by others and the owner is unwilling or unable to alleviate the hinderance within a reasonable time. Findings by the City Council on these matters shall be deemed conclusive. Subd. 4. Permit Duration and Fee. Permits shall be for a five year period commencing on January 1 of the year of issuance. The fee shall be in an amount as set by the council in Section 510. [$75.00] which is payable in five equal annual installments of $15.00 each. The first annual installment is due at the time of application and subsequent installments are due on or before ~ -~ the last day of February of each year during the term of the permit.. In instances in which the permit holder is also the holder of a city dock license, the annual dock license will not be issued until the annual installment has been paid unless the Subject Structure permit holder provides the City with a written statement relinquishing all interest in the Subject Structure and consenting to its removal by the City. Subject Structure permit fees will be placed in a separate account which will be dedicated to expenditures incurred in the administration and enforcement of activities under this Section. ~BD1385§4 HU200-! Sub& $. Transfer of Permit. Permits issued under this section may be transferred by the permittee to third parties who become the owner and occupant of the property primarily benefited by the Subject Structure. Such transfer shall not confer to the transferee any further rights than those held by the transferor at the time of transfer. Requests for transfer shall be made in writing to the City Building Official who shall approve the transfer in writing unless conditions exist which would constitute grounds for action pursuant to subdivision 8 below. "A covenant executed by the applicant in form acceptable to the City indemnifying, holding harmless and agreeing to defend the City against any claims based upon the continued maintenance of the Cc. unc~ subject Structure." Subd. 6. Conditions for Issuance. The City Council may attach conditions to permits granted under this section. Such conditions may include, without limitation: a. a written agreement, backed with security deemed reasonable by the City Council, providing for the removal of the Subject Structure when it is no longer under permit, and acknowledging the structure owners obligation to remove the structure and/or pay for the cost of doing so. b. A covenant executed by the applicant in form acceptable to the City indemnifying, holding harmless and agreeing to defend the City against any claims based upon the continued maintenance of the C",,'.'.ncil subject Structure. Subd. 7. extent: ..... :~'--' Repair, Modification and Alteration of Subject Structure. Except to the inconsistent with the provisions of this Section, the repair, modification or JBD138554 MU200-1 alteration of the Subject Structure will be treated as if the Subject Structure were a non-conforming structure located on private property in accordance with the provisions of Section 350:420, subdivisions 1 through 8. Subd. 8. Termination of Permit. Permits issued under this section may be terminated and the transfer may be declined upon a determination by the City Council that any of the following conditions exist: a. Any of the criteria described in Subdivision 3 of this section are found to exist; b. The Subject Structure has been abandoned. c. The permit fee has not been paid. d. There has been a violation or lapse of any condition imposed on the permit. Following notice of such termination, the City may exercise whatever remedy is available to it either by contract or at law to secure the removal of the Subject Structure. JBD138554 MU200-1 alteration of the Subject Structure will be treated as if the Subject Structure were a non-conforming structure located on private property in accordance with the provisions of Section 350:420, subdivisions 1 through 8. Subd. $. Termination of Permit. Permits issued under this section may be terminated and the transfer may be declined upon a determination by the City Council that any of the following conditions exist: ao Any of the criteria described in Subdivision 3 of this section are found to exist; The Subject Structure has been abandoned. The permit fee has not been paid. There has been a violation or lapse of any condition imposed on the permit. Following notice of such termination, the City may exercise whatever remedy is available to it either by contract or at law to secure the removal of the Subject Structure. JBD138554 MU200-1 Mound Planning Commission Minutes July 27, 1998 ENCROACHMENT POLICY Loren Gordon presented his staff report. As per the direction of the Committee of the Whole session on June 16, 1998, the Council asked the Planning Commission for input on the Public Commons Encroachment Policy. Attached is the Docks and Commons Commission Existing Encroachment Policy Recommendations, excerpts from Section 320 concerning public land permits, and proposed language for ordinance amendment. The review of all public lands permits is through the Dock and Commons Commission and City Council. The Planning Commission is not currently involved in the review process. The Building Official however, is involved in public lands permits and building inspections for structures within the commons. Usually Jon is able to bring perspective on commons issues at the Planning Commission when needed. Aside from his staff input, there is little working knowledge available during Commission meetings. Although the Planning Commission is not currently involved in the review of commons issues, there may be some input or role that would be appropriate. Certainly, commons issues come into consideration on occasion in reviewing planning cases. When these cases arise, background information on the commons or a maintenance permit is generally helpful. It seems appropriate at this stage of reviewing the policy of another commission or council, that the comments of the Planning Commission could suggest the role it can play in commons related issues. What assistance can/should the Commission provide to the ordinance? The Commission has experience in working with the Shoreland Management Ordinance on a regular basis that may provide some guidance. Because this is a discussion item that is somewhat out of the scope of a typical review, it seems that the Commission should first decide how to address the issue before any discussion or recommendation is made. DISCUSSION: Mueller commented that under POLICY A - the wording needs to be corrected. Mueller stated that we are dealing with less than 1/2 of 1 percent of the population in Mound. He stated that there are only 17 different properties that this effects. Mueller had comments on section E of the policy. He feels that section should come before the planning commission. There was discussion on what is allowed to be done to structures on public lands. Chair Michael requested that agendas be sent to all commissioner when the City Council reviews the encroachment policy. Engineering Planning Surveying August 11, 1998 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 SUBJECT: City of Mound Auditors Road MSAP 145-108-03 MFRA//9968 Dear Mayor and Councilmembers: Enclosed is a tabulation of the bids received on Wednesday, August 5, 1998 for the construction of Auditors Road. There were three bids submitted. The low bid of $272,316.00, submitted by Northdale Construction Company is substantially higher than the engineer's estimate of $211,765.00. The other two bids were $283,086.50 and $334,302.00 There are a number of reasons why these bids are higher than expected: 1. Time of year: Most contractors have a full schedule for the remainder of the construction season. Usually bids are lower in the spring when the contractors are looking for work. 2. More projects than normal: Due to the favorable economic conditions, there are more projects being bid which is causing higher unit prices. 3. Completion schedule: The 60-day completion schedule requires immediate and full attention to this project. It cannot be used as fill-in work. Weather conditions: September can be a questionable time to start construction where grading is involved because of the shorter days and less drying weather if it should be a wet month. 15050 23rd Avenue North · Plymouth, Minnesota · 55447 phone 612/476-6010 fax 612/476-8532 e-mail: mfra(~Tmfra, com Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council August 11, 1998 Page 2 The City has a number of options available to them. We have discussed the bids with the Metro State Aid Office and they have informed us that the City could enter into a contract if adequate justification can be made for the higher prices. They feel that the previously mentioned reasons are sufficient justification; in fact, they commented that other recent bids have also come in quite high. The following are the options open to the City: Reject all the bids and rebid the project as soon as possible. With the three-week advertisement requirement, the earliest we could expect to open bids would be the week of September 14. The Council would not be able to award the contract until their meeting on September 22. This would not allow enough time to finish the project this year. In addition, rebidding at this time of year mostly likely will not result in lower prices. Reject all the bids and rebid the project in February or March of 1999. This would probably result in a reduction of unit prices, but there is no guarantee. The only sure thing to happen, is that the project would not be completed until approximately August 1, 1999. o Award the contract to the low bidder. Northdale Construction tells us they are set to start the week of August 24. Unless we have an unseasonably wet fall, we should have substantial completion by the end of October. The low bidder, Northdale Construction is primarily a utility contractor; therefore, the majority of the work will be subcontracted. Approximately $70,000.00 or 25 percent of the contract is underground utility work. Northdale Construction is a respectable contractor and should be capable of performing the work. They have informed us that the subcontractor they are proposing to use for the street work will be Buffalo Bituminous. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me. Very truly yours, McCOMBS FRANK ROOS ASSOCIATES, INC. John Cameron JC:pry e 5main:\9968\mayorS- 11 z d 8 8888S8888888888888 °° oo8888S8888888 ~, 0000~0~000~--~000~0.~~~ 8888~888888888§8~8888~8888888 88~8~8888888888888888888888°°§88oo ddN~N~ddddddddd~dd~d~d~ddddd~ oo~o~ooo~w~O~OOOO~ow~o~o °°~o888o888~o~o8~88~8o88888 oo~O~oo o ooooo oo o o 88888888888888888888888888888888 ~888~8o8~88888888~88~8 ~d ' d ' ' 'dd '~ '~ ........ ~ ' ' 'dd ' ~oo~88888888888oo88888888888~8 ~~ddddd~d~d~ddd~~d dd~ddddddddddddd~ddddddddd~d 00~00000~0~0~00~0~000~0~0 0000000 0 0 0 ~0 0 oooo~oo888o8o888o8~o88888888o888 O0 ~000~0 ~00~0~0 ~ 000000000000000~0000000000000000.~0' · z,-:ddddd,.Z,.z,.ze, i,Zddd ddc~ddd,Z,.Zd~c,.ie, i~d ~"~0~0~ ~ 03[',..0 00000~0 O0~O 01.~0 d 0000000000 0 0 O0 O0 0000 O0 oooooooooo8o8o88oo8o~888oooo888oo 8 80000000000000000~00~000 oooooooooooooo~ooooooooooooo88888 ~00~0~0~~~~0~00~~0 8888888888888888ooooo o ~o 8~=ooo88o8888~o 88888888888888888 8888888888888888 ~8~ ..... ~ .~ .~ ~88888~8~ 8888888888888888~°~888888888888888 888888888888888888888888888888888 8o88o88~88o8~o8o ~ 'd ' 'd ' 'd ' 'd 'do 'ddddddod~ddd~d~~eooooo~o~=~o 888888888888888888888888888888~88 --~o~-~~ooo~ ~ ooo~o~ o 00000000000000~0000000000000000 ~~d~~~ddddd~ oo~ ....... ~o~ ~ tu~ ~ . <,~[ <~°~ zZ¢ (4/90) Five major characteristics summarize the existing Mound park The three major active, non-water oriented rec. reation fl~:~l~es are located on the three school sites,. These s,l,t~e~sA.a.[e~ 'C~i located and afford convenient access l:o users. L --Y- -~ .... nershin of the City of Mound, these sites provide hOC unaer u,,= v- ~ , ' ' an essential contribution to Mound s park system. Future recreation efforts need to continue to recognize the role played facilities. The City of Mound should work by thq school district's i, ~cYl ~n S%'~'h' ~"W'e's'to'nka Scho61 O~tric to n r tha h or use b Mound residents. 2. The City of Mound owns a variety of park properties uniquely. suited to a variety of purposes. The larger sites are used for active recreation while a nU~rerOus smaller parcels function either as open space neighborhood lake access points. permanent Supplementing the designated park areas is an extensive system of publicly owned wetlands and open space. 3. The existing park system contains diverse facilities that serve both active and passive needs. 4. Mound's park system places a major emphasis on neighborhood park facilities. Because of the development pattern of the community, the city has historically relied on numerous smaller neighborhood parks and playgrounds rather than stressing the development of more community wide park facilities. This has resulted in a system that provides parks that are convenient to all residents, however, numerous, smaller sites require higher expenditures for maintenance. 5. Mound has a historical commitment of making Lake Minnetonka accessible to all residents. The city has acquired an extensive system of shoreland properties which provide docks, fishing access and vehicular access to Lake Minnetonka. GENERAL COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Neighborhood parks will be the major component of both the 1990 and 2000 park systems. Based on the concept of positioning park facilities within easy access of a one-half mile service radius, adequate park acreage is available. Neighborhood parks provide play opportunities for small children. They should expand youth oriented activities such as playgrounds, basketball courts and ball fields available for casual games. Selective development of other active facilities such as tennis courts is appropriate in neighborhood parks. 2. The Community Center site, Grandview Middle School and Shirley Hills Elementary School will continue to be key components of the Mound park system. In the next 10 years, significant expansion of 84 facilities is not expected to occur at any of these sites. Major emphasis will need to be placed on maintenance of the existing facilities. 3. Lake accesses, commons property and permanent wetlands/open space will continue to be major elements of Mound's 2000 park system. Since Mound is approaching full development, major expansion of these sites is not envisioned. 4. Establish and implement a system of uniform signs designating the locations and features of parks and recreation areas. Information such as the facility name, date of establishment and any other pertinent historical data may be included. Signage should be used to identify all lake access points. A system of unified signs will aid users in identifying various areas. 5. The city should develop an overall master plan and planting program for all park facilities. Deciduous and evergreen species as well as mass shrub plantings should be considered in order to provide shade, texture, color and other aesthetic and functional values. Plans for parks should integrate recreational facilities into the natural environment of the site. 6. The city should continue to maintain a balanced recreational system which appeals to a broad base of the population and provides recreational opportunities for both active and passive users. 7. Recreational areas should contain facilities for commercial and industrial users as well as residential segments of the population. 8. Mound should expand_it's existinq ownership of ~ature areas an . pe~ace~ ~R~~ tax-forfeited lan~ is ~ possible source of ~q~cn proper~y.- ~requently land becomes t~x forfeit because it · unbuildable due to top~, soil conditions or the pre~e~ce ~etland ar~as. U~raints are ualities ~ ure area~ 9.~, The City should explore seasonal use of wetland areas. During the"winter months, wetlands offer interesting opportunities for hiking and cross country skiing activities. EXISTING PARKS - RECOMMENDATIONS This plan offers a series of recommendations for each of the parks within the existing Mound park system. These recommendations are depicted graphically in the appendix section of this chapter. 85 ITEM//10 August 11, 1998 PROPOSED RESOLUTION RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID FOR AUDITOR'S ROAD IMPROVEMENT WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for the Auditor's Road Improvement Project, bids were received, opened and tabulated according to law, and the following bids were received complying with the advertisement: BUFFALO BITUMINOUS $283 ,O86.5O MIDWEST ASPHALT $334,302.00 NORTHDALE CONSTRUCTION $272,316.00 and WHEREAS, it appears that Northdale Construction is the lowest responsible bidder. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota: 1. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to enter into a contract with Northdale Construction in the name of the City of Mound for the Auditor's Road Improvement Project according to the plans and specifications therefor approved by the City Council and on file in the Office of the City Clerk. 2. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to return forthwith to all bidders the deposits made with their bids, except that the deposits of the successful bidder and the next lowest bidder shall be retained until a contract has been signed. BID TABULATION PROJECT: Auditors Road DATE: August 5, 1998 ('--' OWNER: City of Mound FILE: 9968 .... Page 1 of 1 PLANHOLDER BID BOND AMOUNT COMMENTS U.S. Filter 15801 W. 78th Street Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 Phone: 937-9666 MN Pipe & Equipment 5145-211th Street W. Farmington, Minnesota 55024 Phone: 463-6090 Northdale Construction 14450 Northdale Blvd. ~,4.~ Rogers, Minnesota 553745~/7~ ~-j~ .~//~ ~' Phone: 4284868 j Buffalo Bituminous P'O' B°x 337 5~ o<Q~0~ Buffalo, Minnesota 55313 Phone: 682-1272 S.R. Weidema '~17600 113th Ave. N. Maple Grove, Minnesota 55369 Phone: 428-9110 PPM 14280- James Road Rogers, Minnesota 55374 Phone: 428-8767 Hardrives Inc. 14475 Quiram Ave. Rogers, Minnesota 55374 Phone: 428-8886 AAA Striping Service 5392 Quam Ave. Rogers, Minnesota 55374 Phone: 4284322 Midwest Asphalt 6350 Industrial Dr. Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55346 ~/~b) '3~/~j~ ~.~- Phone: 937-8033 CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DOCK & COMMONS ADVISORY COMMISSION JIM FACKLER DATE: SUBJECT: AUGUST 3, 1998 SETON BLUFF PROPOSED DOCK SITE Inclosed is a plan for a proposed dock at a new development. This dock will be privately owned by the association. The request is to have this city owned unimproved shoreline (Langford Road) added to the current dock location map. There would be six abutting slip sites on a strip of land only accessible by private property. (Type C Classification) Because this proposed plan is to go before the City Council on August 11, 1998, prior to the next regular DCAC meeting, you need to review it and relate your concerns in writing or be present at the Council meeting! printed on recycled paper 1, II ,,Ii Box 161 I, BJra~ville, Miaaesot~ 553~7-0011 RECEIVED AUC, 3 i998 MOU JD 6~2/890-426 Jim Fackler Parks Dept. - City of Mound 5341 Ma.~vood Road Mound. MN 3_ ~64 July 31, 1998 Dear Jim, Enclosed please find the submittal for the dock. permit revised per our discussion of July 29, 1998. A) Dock/Stair plan - shown on plat, to scale B) Construction details for the dock and stairs C) Statement of project follows STATEMENT OF PROJECT This plan shows the details and overview for the site improvements at Seton Bluff. These improvements are similar to what has been approved at Planning Commission and Council as part of the overall project approval. These improvements are for the benefit of the Seton Bluff Homeowners association and are to be owned and maintained by such. The following changes from the Planned Development approval have been made: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) The stair access to the dock has been verified not to encroach onto the city ROW at Langford Road. This removes the stairway from the Public Lands permit. The second stair has been eliminated. The Trail at the shoreline is no longer necessary and has been eliminated. This removes the trail from the Public Lands permit. The dock has been located where the existing cattails and reeds make their closest approach to the defined shoreline. The dock will be installed over the existing vegetation. The dock request is for 6 slips. A suggested layout for numbering is on the plan. Lighting is not part of our proposal. This removes lighting from the Public Lands permit. No tree removal is neccesary From our view, there are no items which will require a Public Lands permit. We look forward to having this item placed on the Commission and Council agendas for the earliest consideration. Sincerely, Steven K. Behnke . 17o I oo ,,0,9 ~.o ),sod b 3o ,,O,Ii' t° ~.SOd ,j E 0 0 Z z Iz b') 0 © 0 CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 56364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 STAFF REPORT DATE :-~y 6, 1998 TO: Mayor and City Council ~/~~____ FROM: Jim Fackler, Park Director~'-~'~/~ // ~ SUBJECT: Addition of a Privately C~ned Multiple Slip Dock on Longford Road for Seton Bluff Development. Background / Comments: Fine Line Design Group, Inc. is asking that the City of Mound add a dock site location on Longford Road that would service one existing and five future abutting property owners. Please find attached a narrative and plans for the proposed site. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the request as submitted based on staff having made contact with Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) verifying that the dock fell within their guidelines and did not need a permit from the respective agencies. By the addition of this site, 220 LnFt of shoreline would be added to the current 29,000 LnFt of non-contiguous shoreline that the city uses for its LMCD Multiple Dock and Mooring Area License. This license allows the city dock program to allow up to 590 Boat Storage Units (BSU) within its current system. At this time we have only utilizing 492 BSU's at city dock sites. The additional boats will not exceed current limitations of BSU's or require the city to change their license with the LMCD. At this time staff needs to be directed by council to add the dock location to the Dock Location Map and to assign site numbers. All sites would be assigned as the homes are prlnted on recycled paper sold and the buyer becomes a resident, except in the case of the current resident of 4634 Kildare Road, which could be assigned a dock slip location now. All fees would be due as the new resident makes application for the current year. No fees are required from Fine Line Design to have this site established on the Dock Location Map. Staff will verify, upon the dock being installed, that it meets the specifications described in the plan. Any variation requiring a permit from the DNR or the LMCD will be reason to not allow any boat dockage until correction is made or a permit from pertinent agency is obtained. Any cost to obtain a permit from the DNR or LMCD will be the responsibility of Fine Line Design. 07.'30,'")0 14~00 ~ 4?9 0520 IHDI:Pr'HDEHCE P.Ol ¢/TY OF HENNEPIN COUNTY July 30, 199§ Honorable Co~m~fissioner Penny Steele Hennepin Coun~.y Board of Commi~doner, l:t'em~epin County Government Center 300 ~. 6t'' St. Minneapoli~ MNI 55343 !)ear commis.qio.-.er Steele: It has come to my attention thai a resolution regarding CSAII 110 and mal~ing it a Natm al Preservation Route Highway was brought before the Public Service Comm~.uee on Tuesday..luly 23. l'hat resolution literally pm a hall to flIe upgrading of County Rm~d 110 in Minnetrista and maybe Independence, a very busy and dangerous roadway. I am extremely disappointed with your action and rage you to immediately reconsider this 1. Th, Cities of Indepcndcnc,s and Mound w~r, not made aw~¢ of ¢onaidcr~,tion of this matter on your agenda. 2. lite upgrading of tt'fis highway has been a part ofltenncpin County's calendar for upgrading for scvcral ycar~. 3. Thc road is not a unique roadway and has a grcat dcal oftraffic. 4. Thc road was used as e State l-Iighw~y in the oast and has been used as an arterial road during ~he last century. 5. A few people should not be able to stop a project that will be for the benefit of many thousands cfloca! residents who use this road. north or south. 6. The City of independence adopted a Comprehendve Park~ and Trails system in 1.092. A major component of that ,y~tem depends on having a paved xuide mhoulder on CSAI.-I 1 I0 to hook onto the Luce Line State Trail from CSAI-I 6 fbr Independence, Maple Plain. Mound and Minnetri,ta. lg20 COUNTY ROAD 90. MAPLE PLAIN. MINNFSOTA 55.'t59 - PHONE (61Z1 47~J-0577- FAX (01Z) 479-0,5~8 07/30/9B 14:81 l~ 479 8528 INDEPENDENCE P.02 ?. The Lucc Line '['rail crosses CSAli 110 and all trail users from Mound must usc CSAH 1 l0 to access thc trail from the south, Safety is a major issue without wide shoulders, 8, Hennepin County, Hennepin Parks and the cities of the Northwest Lca.guo of Municipali'des worked long and hai'd on adopting a united trai! plan that included County Road 110 as a major component of our trail plan. 9. The Independence Cily Council unanimously approved the upgrade of CSAH 1 l0 at i~s April 4, 1998 meeting, There are many other points, but for brevity l will stop with these, l believe your action was hasty and ill informed. I request that you pull this matter for reconsideration. If you have questions, please give me a call al 479-2274 and I'll Ir), to get. back to you as soon as possible. Sincerely, Marvin D, Johnson Mayor, City of Independence CITY of MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 (612) 472-1155 II, f EMO,qA IVD llA/I DATE: AUgUSt 7, 1998 TO: FROM: CiW Manager, Members of the City Council and Staff Jon Sutherland, Building Official ~ ~ SUBJECT: JULY 1998 MONTHLY REPORT CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY There were 53 building permits issued in July for a construction value of $ 375,271. we issued 33 plumbing, mechanical, and miscellaneous permits for a total of 86 permits this month, and 426 permits year-to-date. Total valuation now stands at $ 3,019,963.. Ten (10) more permits have been issued to repair damage to property due to the storm and high winds that hit on May 15, 1998. PLANNING & ZONING The Planning Commission reviewed Ten (10) cases and sent seven (7) variance cases, one (1) variance extension case, one (1) Minor Subdivision case and one (1) Conditional Use Permit to the City Council. kl City of Mound BUILDING ACTIVITY REPORT Month: JULY Year: 1998 THIS MONTH YEAR TO DATE SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED ] /4 573, 68/4 SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED (CONDOS) TWO FAMILY / DUPLEX 2 68/4,015 MULTIPLE FAMILY (3 OR MORE UNITS) TRANSIENT HSG. (HOTELS / MOTELS) SUBTOTAL 6 1 , 257,699 COMMERCIAL (RETAIL/RESTAURANT) OFFICE ! PROFESSIONAL INDUSTRIAL PUBLIC t SCHOOLS SUBTOTAL ADDITIONS TO PRINCIPAL BUILDING 3 106,000 18 561 ~ 819 DETACHED ACCESS ORY BUILDINGS 2 23 ~ 900 18 197 ~ /419 DECKS 7 48 ~ 395 37 113 ~ 067 SWIMMING POOLS 2 11 ~ 717 2 11, 717 REMODEL- MISC RESIDENTIAL 36 146, 183 159 737, 335 REMODEL- MULTIPLE DWELLINGS i 8, 576 1 8 ~ 576 SUBTOTAL 51 344,771 235 1,629,933 COMMERCIAL (RETAIL/RESTAURANT) 3 50,670 OFFICE / PROFESSIONAL I 2,500 INDUSTRIAL i 500 PUBLIC /SCHOOLS i 30,000 /4 75,161 DETACHED ACCESSORY BUILDINGS SUBTOTAL i 30,000 9 128,831 RESIDENTIAL DWELLINGS i 2, 300 NON RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS 1 500 2 1 ~ 200 TOTAL DEMOLITIONS 1 500 3 3 , 500 # PERMITS # UNITS VALUATION # UNITS VALUATION # PERMITS 6 TOTAL . 53 375,271 253 3,019,963 PERMIT COUNT I THIS MONTH I YEAR_TO_DATE · BUILDING 53 253 FENCES & RETAINING WALLS 2 12 stuns 2 6 PLUMBING 10 77 MECHANICAL 1 6 6 3 GRADING 0 0 S&W, STREET EXCAV., FIRE, ETC. 3 15 TOTAL I 86 I /426 GENERAL PERMIT REPORT FOR MONTH OF JULY 1998 MONTH YEAR DAY PERMIT# ADDRESS CONTRACTOR PERMIT TYPE JULY 98 13 4020 1737 CANARY LANE JULY 98 7 4022 2910 OAKLAWN LANE JULY 98 7 4023 5513 BARTLETT BLVD JULY 98 7 4024 5573 SHERWOOD DR JULY 98 7 4025 2162 CENTERVIEW LANE JULY 98 7 4026 2888 PELICAN POINT ClR JULY 98 7 4027 2878 PELICAN POINT CIR JULY 98 7 4028 5043 ENCHANTED RD JULY 98 9 4029 2920 OAKLAWN LANE JULY 98 13 4030 4510 WlLSHIRE BLVD JULY 98 16 4031 1700 JONES LANE JULY 98 21 4032 5100 EDGEWATER DR JULY 98 22 4033 3016 HIGHLAND BLVD JULY 98 22 4034 2125 CEDAR LANE JULY 98 24 4035 1706 RESTHAVEN LANE JULY 98 27 4036 5913 FAIRFIELD RD JULY 98 24 4037 4930 WlLSHIRE BLVD JULY 98 24 4038 4956 THREE POINTS BLVD JULY 98 24 4039 4684 MANCHESTER RD JULY 98 24 4040 4726 ABERDEEN RD JULY 98 24 4041 2950 ISLAND VIEW DR JULY 98 27 4042 4780 MANCHESTER RD JULY 98 27 4043 2385 COMMERCE BL VD JULY 98 28 4044 4570 DORCHESTER RD JULY 98 28 4045 4541 ABERDEEN RD JULY 98 29 4046 2900 PELICAN POINT CT JULY 98 29 4047 2890 PELICAN POINT CT JULY 98 31 4048 4974 BRUNSWICK RD NORBLOM PLUMBING KLEVE HEATING & AC SUPERIOR PLUMB ABEL B & C INC SUPERIOR CONTRACT STEINKRAUS PLUMB STEINKRAUS PLUMB MIKE ZYGADLO NORRIS CONCRETE HELLAND HEATING MI N N ESOTA WATER J SMITH HEATING ALTA LTD WESTONKA MECH JOSEPH WAGNER STA-LOR MASONRY ADVANTAGE AIR RON'S MECH RON'S MECH COUNTRYSIDE HTG GAVIC & SONS KELLY FREIDLUND DONAHUE MECH RON'S MECH CUSTOM PLUMBING DITTER INC DITTER INC MCGUIRE & SONS PLUMB MECH MECH MECH MECH PLUMB PLUMB PLUMB CURB CUT MECH PLUMB MECH MECH PLUMB MECH CURB CUT MECH MECH MECH MECH MECH CURB CUT PLUMB MECH PLUMB MECH MECH PLUMB F- Z LL LU Z 0 I-'- Z 0 n~ LU Z Z 00~0 000000 ~ ~ 000 d d > d d z ~ ~ ~w W do ~ ~ Z ~ O~ ~ ~ ~ 0 Z 0 w ~ ~ z ~o ~ ~o ~ ~ ~ -- w w 0 ~z ~ 0 ~ -- ~ §o oooo 5o0o z z Z o _o _o z z w 0 ,~ 0 k- (D O ~ n,' n,' 0 Z ~- N -- n- w w n z ~ Z -- 0 T ~ z -- Z ~ zo ~ ~ ~ n,0 0 0 ~ ~ Z 0T 0 0 r~ Z w n Z Z ,~ ~ ~ 00 _J -- Z ~ ~ Z T I-- Z 0 0 U- 0 Z w o ~ ~~ z o ~ ~ - ~ o X O X 0 Z o ~o~eo8 oo~ _ ~ ~0 O0 W W ~ z~× o$O ~o o~ ww~Oww 0 ~ ~ z ~ d~ 0 0 · Z ~ 00000 ~00000 WWW~ Z 0 Z Z 0 ~ o ~ >~m LIJ n UJ Z Z 0 0 ~ 0 0® z~ o~oooo o 000~0000~0 ~ W W W W ~ W W ~ ~ z ~ Z ~0 WZ Z~O O0 ~ W ZO =o~ ~ Z o~ ~ m mm <>~ g$ R~° TO: FROM: RE: MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL AND CITY MANAGER GINO BUSINARO, FINANCE DIRECTOR JULY FINANCE DEPARTMENT REPORT Investment Activity Bought: Money Market 4M Plus 42,784 Money Market US Bank 130,374 CP Smith Barney 5.609% 400,400 CP Smith Barney 5.651% 425,337 CP Dain Rauscher 5.62% 349,357 Matured: Money Market US Bank (165,000) Money Market Smith Barney (335) CP Smith Barney 5.613% (419,134) CD Crow River Bank (95,000) 1999 Budget Pre_Daration To comply with the truth in taxation laws, the city must certify the proposed levy to the county and adopt the proposed budget by September 15. The State Department of Revenue has provided us the necessary forms and instructions. The Local Government Aid for 1999 has been calculated by the State Department of Revenue and it will be in the amount of $335,034. The Homestead and Agri- cultural Credit Aid amount will be $491,794 and the 1999 Local Performance Aid will be $11,797. The balance of revenues needed will be provided by fees and local property taxes. The State Department of Revenue has certified the local property tax levy limit. This is the new requirement mandated by the legislature two years ago. Our levy limit for 1999 was set at $1,437,327. This amount does not include special levies ( levies for bonded indebtedness, etc.) or special assessments. Deloris Schwalbe Deloris has notified us that she will retire and that her last day working for the City will be August 7, 1998. As you know, in her position with the City, she has provided assistance to the residents of the city for the last 23 years. To Deloris go our thanks for the dedicated service provided to the City of Mound and all the best in her years of retirement. MOUND VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT MOUND, MINNESOTA FOR MONTH OF ,~1~,¥ 1998 FIRE FIGHTERS DRILLS & MAINTENANCE FIRE & RESCUE 7/13 7/20 ~ H[IRS H/RS RAIE 1 JEFF AkrDEJISEN X X 2 19.O0 5 65 6.50 422.50 2 ,$REG A~])~QN X X 2 19.00 0 55 6.50 357.50 3 PAUL BABB X X 2 19.00 2.5 61 6.50 396.50 4 DAVID BOYD X X 2 19. O0 0 36 6.75 243. O0 5 SCOTT BRYCE (E) X 1 9.50 2 13 6.5Q 84.50 6 JI~'i CASEY X X 2 19. O0 0 37 6.5Q 240.50 7 BOB CRALrFORD X X 2 19. O0 3.5 49 6.5Q 318.50 8~%k~Dy ENGEiJ~J~RT X X 2 19.00 14 34 6.50 221.00 9DAN GRADY X X 2 19.00 2 46 6.5Q 299.00 10KEVIN GRADY X X 2 19.00 0 27 6.50 175.50 llBRUCE t~JSTAFSON X X 2 19. O0 2 40 6,50 260.00 12?AT ~I~\%EY X X 2 19.00 3 56 6, )0 364.00 13CRAIG H~NDERSON X X 2 19.00 2 46 6.50 299.00 14PALq~ HF~Y X X 2 19. O0 3 28 6.50 182.00 15xtATr P~ES X X 2 ]9.00 0 52 6.50 338.00 16~t~l'r JAKUBIK X X 2 19.00 1.5 33 6.50 214.50 1 ~ROGER k~YCK X X 2 19.00 0 35 6.50 227.50 18JOHN L~JtSON X X 2 19. O0 0 43 6.50 279.50 19JASON ~JIS X X 2 19.00 2 56 6.50 364.00 20%Ok~' ~5~ERS X X 2 19.00 1.5 50 6.50 325.00 21JOHN NAFUS X X 2 19.00 2 48 6.50 223AMES ~LSON X X 2 19.O0 2 30 6.50 195.OO 2~RE~ NICCU~I X X 2 19.00 3 24 6.50 156.00 24GREG PAL~ X X 2 19.OO 2 43 6.50 279.50 2?.~IKE PAI~I X X 2 19. O0 1 45 6.50 292.50 26TI~i PALM X X 2 19.00 3.5 50 6.50 325.00 27GREG PEDERSON X X 2 19.00 0 44 7. O0 308. O0 28CHRIS POUNDER X X 2 19.00 5.5 38 6.50 247.00 29R I CIL%RD ROGERS X X 2 19;00 2.5 48 6.50 312.00 30~,IIKE SAVAGE X X 2 19.00 3 56 6.50 364.00 31KEVIN SI PPRELL X X 2 19.00 2.5 37 6.50 240.50 32RON STALLMAN X (~) 1 9.50 2 26 6.50 169.00 33BRUCE SVOBODA X X 2 - 19.00 2 36 6.50 234.00 _3~ED VA~_CEK X X 2 19. O0 2 43_ .._6 ,.5..0 279.50 _3?RICK WILLIA~IS X X 2 19.00 18.5 49 6,50 318.50 36T~ WILLIA~S X X 2 19.00 2 47 6.50 305.50 37 n~L~ UOYTf~fE X X 2 ] q.OO ~. 5 47 6.50 36 36 72 /UrAIS 90 90 180 684.00 101 1573 W~ 10,255.50 180 IRILIS 684.00 101 MAIN% 1,250.00 IOrAL 12,189.50 HOUND FIRE DEPARTMENT MONTHLY ACTIVITY REPORT MONT~{ MON/]{ TO DATE TO DATE 35'2q C? JULY 1998 3. OF CALLS (504) 82 76 449 469 iOU~D FIRE 15 20 102 136 EMERGENCY 26 27 152 138 ~! b';~ET 2::KA BEACH FIRE 3 5 14 12 EbfERGENUY 2 0 5 2 '.! .X.X l ~ ?. _: STA FIRE 2 2 16 32 EMERGE2qCY 4 1 20 28 RO:;C FIRE 2 9 44 36 EiM]ERGENCY 7 3 19 14 HC, REW?OD FIRE ] Q ] 4 IMERGENL~ 0 0 2 2 ? l ! .~'J PARK FIRE I2.~RGE2Erf 7 1 ,72 46 UTUAi A!D FIRE 1 1 . ) 5 [MERGENCY 1 I (27~2) 1 'C'~AL FIRE CALLS ,~5 ~.~ 217 238 :9TAL E.~!ERGENCY CALLS 47 33 232 231 :.ES i D-~ LkL 6 4 2q 28 ?~CS~ZAL 0 0 0 0 .'.?_~$ 5 ~2SC~LANEOUS 14 2Z 103 (240) 121 L~-Z~SE .-~2--%~M / FIRE ALARMS 12 10 61 78 ,~$. OF >.'~'JKS .F, IRE 398 394 2176 3192 - XOUND ',EiMERGENCY 410 403 2582 2610 T(JTAL 808 797 4758 5802 FIRE 62 98 317 247 - ~-:TKA BEACH E~fERGENCy 38 0 98 63 TOti/LL 100 98 415 310 FIRE 46 33 421 832 - X' TRISTA ~/.~SIGENCY 54 8 422 580 TOTAL 100 41 843 1412 .F.IRE 24 176 1062 955 ~0~0 mmROmCr 142 5~ 396 22~ ZOZAL 166 Z35 1458 1182 F.IRE 12 0 12 al SHOREW00D .M.~RGENCY 0 0 44 38 .TOTAL 12 0 56 119 FIRE 239 118 759 313 - SP. PARK ..m'm:RGn,L-'Y 105 21 560 850 TOTAL 344 159 1319 1163 FIRE 34 66 148 184 - ].~dIU.CL AID .EMERGENCY 9 ] 7 26 TOTAL 43 8,3 ] 74 2O4 TOTAL DRILL HOURS 180 180 1190 11go TOTAL FIRE HOURS 815 885 4895 5804 ?OTAL EMERGENCY HOURS 758 508 4128 4388 ~r-~L FIRE & EflZRGENCY HOURS 1573 1393 9023 ]0.]92 !UTUAL .AID RECEIVED O 0 ~ 4 ~"~tI~t.,,_ AID GIVEN 2 2 7 J DISCIPLINE & TEAMWORK .IRITIQUE OF FIRES PRE-PLAN & INSPECTIONS TOOLS & APPARATUS IDENTIFY HAND EXTINGUISHER OPERATIONS WEARING PROTECTIVE CLOTHING FILMS FIRST-AID & RESCUE OPERATIONS USE OF SELF-CONTAINED MASKS MOUND FIRE DEPARTMENT DRILL REPORT DATE PUMPER OPERATIONS FIRE STREAMS & FRICTION LOSS HOUSE BURNING NATURAL / PROPANE GAS DEMOS LADDER EVOLUTIONS SALVAGE OPERATIONS RADIO OPERATIONS HOUSE EVOLUTIONS NOZZLES & HOSE APPLIANCES HOURS TRAINING PAID: (EXCUSED X UNEXCUSED O PRESENT (not paid) PERSONNEL Z~l ~ G. ANDERSON '~'"~'"~" C. HENDERSON ~""~'~"- C. POUNDER ~ Z P, BABB Z~ M. HENTGES Z~I~ R. ROGERS ~{ L D. BOYO ¢i ~ M. JAKUBIK ~ M. PALM ~l Z K. e~Y Z ti ~ J. NELSON Z~ E. VANEOEK TOTAL # OF FIREFIGHTERS MOUND FIRE DEPARTMENT DATE DISCIPLINE & TEAMWORK ~ PUMPER OPERATIONS CRITIQUE OF FIRES FIRE STREAMS & FRICTION LOSS PRE-PLAN & INSPECTIONS '~ HOUSE BURNING TOOLS & APPARATUS IDENTIFY NATURAL / PROPANE GAS DEMOS HAND EXTINGUISHER OPERATIONS LADDER EVOLUTIONS VVEARING PROTECTIVE CLOTHING SALVAGE OPERATIONS FILMS '~ RADIO OPERATIONS FIRST-AID & RESCUE OPERATIONS ~ HOUSE EVOLUTIONS USE OF SELF-CONTAINED MASKS NOZZLES & HOSE APPLIANCES HOURS TRAINING PAID: {~ EXCUSED X UNEXCUSED O PRESENT (not paid) PERSONNEL [tJL D, BOYD ~1~ M. JAKUBIK ~i~ M. PALM ~lL s.~CE Z~l~R. KRYCK ~ T. PALM ~1 ~ J. CASEY Z~z~ O. ~RSON ~ M, SAVAGE ~ll~ R. ENGEL~RT Z~[ ~ T. MYERS ~ R. STALLMAN Ztl~ ~. ~us~so. ZII~ ~..~ccu~ ~1~ .. w~u~s ~1~ P. HANLEY ~l~ G. PALM ~1~ T. WILLIAMS ~1~ D. WO~C~E DATE MOUND FIRE DEPARTMENT TOTAL MAINTENANCE FOR MONTH OF MEN ON DUTY J J. ANDERSEN ~ G. ANDERSON ~ ~J ~- P. BABB ~) D. BOYD ~ S. BRYCE ~ J. CASEY -~,'~' B. CRAWFORD R. ENGELHART D. GRADY K. GRADY B. GUSTAFSON P. HANELY C. HENDERSON P. HENRY M. HENTGES M. JAKUBIK R. KRYCK J. LARSON J. MAAS TOTAL MONTHLY HOURS /, ~-- T. MYERS ~ J. NAFUS ~2_ J.' NELSON '-~ B. NICCUM ~;L G. PALM O G. PEDERSON ~-~ 5 C. POUNDER ~t~ R. ROGERS 3 M. SAVAGE ~.S K. SIPPRELL ~ R. STALLMAN ~ B. SVOBODA ~- E. VANECEK Jg, J'~ R. WILLIAMS ~ T. WILLIAMS ~.-5~ D. WOYTCKE CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 To: Mayor, City Council and City Manager From: Joel Krumm, Liquor Store Manager Date: August 3, 1998 Re: July 1998, Monthly Report The month of August was the biggest month ever as far as sales goes in the history of the store. Gross sales topped out at $188,390.00. The previous best month ever was in August of 1996 when we did $176,709.00. One of the reason for our success last month was the fact that we were open on the Fourth of July. I decided that since the Fourth fell on a Saturday this year it would be beneficial to be open. And indeed it was. Even though we were open for limited hours (8:00 am to 6:00 p.m.), we managed to produce just over $10,000 in sales for the day. The Thursday before the Fourth we did just under $9,000.00 and that Friday's sales was just over $15,000.00. So far for the year sales are at $1,016,953.00. Customer count to date is 68,645. This compares to $924,773.00 in sales to date last year, (up $92,180), and 64,569 customers, (up 4,076). I've had to hire a couple new employees and need to hire two more. Two of my part timers had to quit because the weekend work was interfering with their family commitments. One employee has moved to one of the southern suburbs making the drive and time to get here not practical. I also need to hire someone for the afternoons around here to help Julie and myself out plus allowing us to take some vacation time. printed on recycled pa;er LEN HARRELL Chief of Police MOUND POLICE 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Telephone 472-0621 Dispatch 525-6210 Fax 472-0656 EMERGENCY 911 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Ed Shukle Chief Len Harrell Monthly Report for July, 1998 I. STATISTICS The police department responded to 1,004 calls for service during the month of July. There were 33 Part I offenses reported. Those offenses included 2 criminal sexual conduct, 10 burglaries, 19 larcenies, and 2 vehicle theft. There were 69 Part II offenses reported. Those offenses included 4 child abuse/neglect, 1 forgery, 3 narcotics, 9 damage to property, 7 liquor law violations, 5 DUI's, 4 simple assaults, 8 domestics (6 with assaults), 1 weapons, 1 harassment, 14 juvenile status, and 12 other offenses. The patrol division issued 93 adult citations and 3 juvenile citations. Parking violations accounted for an additional 33 tickets. Warnings were issued to 78 individuals for a variety of violations. There was 1 juvenile arrested for a felony. There were 23 adults and 18 juveniles arrested for misdemeanors. There were three felony warrants and an additional 2 misdemeanor warrant arrests. The department assisted in 12 vehicle accidents, 3 with injuries. There were 35 medical emergencies and 48 animal complaints. Mound assisted other agencies on 14 occasions in July and requested assistance 13 times. Property valued at $18,699 was stolen in July. MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT MONTHLY REPORT - July, 1998 II. INVESTIGATIONS The investigators worked on 2 criminal sexual conduct cases and 4 child protection issues accounting for 61 hours of investigative time. Other cases included assault, burglary, domestic assault, DWI, terroristic threats, damage to property, forgery, auto theft, NSF checks, narcotics, theft, harassment, and absenting. Formal complaints were issued for 5th degree assault, underage consumption, gross misdemeanor DWI, disorderly conduct, false information to police, obstructing legal process, no drivers license, driving after cancellation, marijuana in a motor vehicle, switching license plates, and criminal damage to property. III. Personnel/Staffillg The department used approximately 23 hours of overtime during the month of July. Officers used 48 hours of comp-time, 164 hours of vacation, 35 hours of sick time, and 13 holiday. Officers earned 25 hours of comp time. IV. TRAINING Two officers attended the Wilson Leadership course and one officer . attended an accident reconstruction course. Myself and Sgt. McKinley worked with the fire department on a mass casualty incident training. V. COMMUNITY SERVICES OFFICERS Officers Holzerland and Piper addressed 39 animal complaints, 55 ordinance violations, and 151 miscellaneous calls for services. The police reserves donated 124 hours of community service to the department and the community in July. There are currently eight reserves in the unit. $171 MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT JULY 1998 OFFzNSES CLEARED EXCEPT- CLEAI~ED BY ARRESTED I~EPORTED UNFOUNDED CLEARED AR/~EST ADULT JUV PART I CRIMES Homicide 0 0 0 0 0 Criminal Sexual Conduct 2 0 0 0 0 Robbery 0 0 0 0 0 Aggravated Assault 0 0 0 0 0 Burglary 10 0 0 0 0 Larceny 19 0 0 0 0 Vehicle Theft 2 0 0 0 0 Arson 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 33 0 0 0 0 PART II CRIMES Child Abuse/Neglect 4 1 0 1 0 Forgery/NSF Checks 1 0 0 0 0 Criminal Damage to Property 9 0 0 0 0 Weapons 1 0 1 0 0 Narcotic Laws 3 0 0 3 9 Liquor Laws 7 0 0 7 4 DWI 5 0 0 5 5 Simple Assault 4 0 1 1 1 Domestic Assault 6 0 2 1 1 Domestic (No Assault) 2 0 0 0 0 Harassment 1 0 0 0 0 Juvenile Status Offenses 14 0 1 10 0 Public Peace 0 0 0 0 0 Trespassing 2 0 0 1 0 All Other Offenses 10 0 0 3 3 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 1 0 TOTAL 69 I 5 32 23 18 pART II & PART IV Property Damage Accidents Personal Injury Accidents Fatal Accidents Medicals Animal Complaints Mutual Aid Other General Investigations TOTAL 9 3 0 35 48 14 732 841 HCCP Inspections TOTAL 6 1,004 32 23 19 31f2.. MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT CRIME ACTIVITY REPORT JULY 1998 GENERAL ACTIVITY SUMMARY Hazardous Citations Non-Hazardous Citations Hazardous Warnings Non-Hazardous Warnings Verbal Warnings Parking Citations DWI Over .10 Property Damage Accidents Personal Injury Accidents Fatal Accidents Adult Felony Arrests Adult Misdemeanor Arrests Juvenile Felony Arrests Juvenile Misdemeanor Arrests Part I Offenses Part II Offenses Medicals Animal Complaints Ordinance Violations Other Public Contacts THIS YEAR TO LAST YEAR MONTH DATE TO DATE 43 372 601 47 319 472 4 106 156 31 313 443, 85 579 510 33 253 430 5 41 63 1 26 52 9 49 54 3 18 23 0 0 0 2 14 21 25 233 274 2 38 20 18 130 87 33 225 155 69 450 448 35 209 178 48 346 346 55 219 169 732 5,786 4,976 TOTAL Assists Follow-Ups HCCP Mutual Aid Given Mutal Aid Requested 1,280 9,726 9,478 63 414 433 85 469 277 6 41 22 14 117 92 13 40 61 MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT JULY 1998 CITATIONS DWI More Than .10% BAC Careless/Reckless Driving Driving After Susp. or Rev. Open Bottle Speeding No DL or Expired DL Restriction on DL Improper, Expired or No Plates Stop Arm Violations Stop Sign Violations Failure to Yield Equipment Violations H&R Leaving the Scene No Insurance Illegal or Unsafe Turn Over the Centerline Parking Violations Crosswalk Dog Ordinances Code Enforcement Seat Belt Overweight Vehicles Miscellaneous Tags T~T;tL ~DULT 5 1 0 1 0 33 2 1 20 0 6 0 4 0 12 1 0 33 1 1 1 0 0 4 126 JUV]~NIL~, o o o o o 1 o o o o 1 o 1 o o o o o o o o o o MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT JULY 1998 Insurance Traffic Equipment Crosswalk Animals Trash/Derelict Autos Seat Belt Trespassing Window Tint Miscellaneous TOTAL WARRANT ARRESTS Felony Misdemeanor 24 13 16 0 0 13 0 0 0 7 73 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Run: 29-Jul-98 13:32 PRO03 Primary ISN's only: No Date Reported range: 06/26/98 - 07/25/98 /-'-~Activity codes: All ~ ~roperty Status: All Property Types: All Property Descs: All Brands: All Models: All Officers/Badges: All Prop Prop Inc no ISN Pr Prop Date Rptd Stolen Tp Desc SN Stat Stolen Value Prop type Totals: Prop type Totals: Prop type Totals: Prop type Totals: Prop type Totals: Prop type Totals: Prop type Totals Prop type Totals Prop type Totals Prop type Totals: Prop type Totals: Prop type Totals: Prop type Totals: Report Totals: 1,100 39 3 2,125 772 1,745 2,970 1,376 5 974 50 50 295 2 200 18,699 MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT Enfors Property Report STOLEN/RECOVERED BY DATE REPORTED Page Date Recov'd Quantity Act Brand Model 0ff-1 Off-2 Recov'd Value Code Assnd Assnd 0 1.000 10 2.000 0 1.000 0 1.000 10 4.000 0 5.000 0 2.000 15 7.0O0 5,974 1.000 0 1.000 0 1.000 0 1.000 0 7.000 6,009 34.000 Run: 29-Jul-98 10:54 CFS08 Primary ISN's only: No Date Reported range: 06/26/98 - 07/25/98 Time range each day: 00:00 - 23:59 How Received: All Activity Resulted: All Dispositions: All Officers/Badges: All Grids: All Patrol Areas: All Days of the week: All MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT Enfors Calls For Service INCIDENT ANALYSIS BY ACTIVITY CODE ACTIVITY CODE NUMBER OF DESCRIPTION INCIDENTS 9000 SPEEDING 33 9001 J-SPEEDING 1 9002 NO D/L, EXPIRED D/L 2 9004 RESTRICTED D/L 1 9014 STOP SIGN 6 9015 J-STOP SIGN 1 9018 EQUIPMENT VIOLATION 3 9024 ILLEGAL/UNSAFE TURNS 1 9030 CROSSWALK VIOLATION 1 9036 OBSTRUCTED VISION 1 9037 J-OBSTRUCTED VISION 1 9038 ALL OTHER TRAFFIC 2 9100 PARKING/ALL OTHER 32 9150 NO TRAILER PARKING 1 9200 DAS/DAR/DAC 1 9210 PLATES/NO-IMPROPER-EXPIRED 20 9220 NO INSURANCE/PROOF OF 12 9300 LOST ARTICLES/OTHER 1 9309 FOUND/RUNAWAY 1 9312 FOUND ANIMALS/IMPOUNDS 4 9313 FOUND PROPERTY 12 9420 DERELICT AUTO i Page Run: 29-Jul-98 10:54 CFS08 Primary ISN's only: No Date Reported range: 06/26/98 - 07/25/98 ~"'~[:ange each day: 00:00 - 23:59 % I HOW Received: All Activity Resulted: All Dispositions: All Officers/Badges: Ail Grids: All Patrol Areas: All Days of the week: All MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT Enfors Calls For Service INCIDENT ANALYSIS BY ACTIVITY CODE ACTIVITY CODE NUMBER OF DESCRIPTION INCIDENTS 9430 PERSON/kL INJ~TRY ACCIDENTS 2 9440 N/R PERSONAL INJURY ACC. 1 9450 PROPERTY DAMAGE ACCIDENTS 6 9451 H/R PROPERTY DAMAGE ACC. 3 9561 DOG BITE 4 3565 DOG LICENSE 1  ANIMAL ENFORCEMENT TICKETS 1 9567 DANGEROUS DOG 3 9710 MEDICAL/ASU 2 3720 MEDICAL/DOA 1 ~730 MEDICALS 29 ~732 MEDICALS/CI 1 9735 IOD INJIJRY 2 9800 ALL OTHER/UNCLASSIFIED 8 9801 DOMESTIC/NO ASSAULT 2 9810 LOITERING/LLIRKING 2 9900 ALL HCCP CASES 6 9904 OPEN DOOR/ALARMS 3 9920 INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT 2 ~ HkNDGLrN APPLICATION 4 9931 }~NDGUN DENIALS 1 9943 PROWLER 1 Page Run: 29-Jul-98 10:54 CFS08 Primary ISN's only: No Date Reported range: 06/26/98 - 07/25/98 Time range each day: 00:00 - 23:59 How Received: All Activity Resulted: All Dispositions: All Officers/Badges: All Grids: All Patrol Areas: All Days of the week: All MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT Enfors Calls For Service INCIDENT ANALYSIS BY ACTIVITY CODE ACTIVITY CODE NUMBER OF DESCRIPTION INCIDENTS 9945 SUSPICIOUS PERSON 1 9951 SEX OFFENDERS 9980 WARRANTS 5 9990 MISC. VIOLATIONS 3 9991 J-MISC. VIOLATIONS 1 9992 MUTUAL AID/8100 5 9993 MUTUAL AID/6500 4 ~994 MUTUAL AID/ ALL OTHER 4 ~996 MUTUAL AID/NARCOTICS 1 q5352 ASLT 5-MS-INFLICT BD HRM-HANDS-ASLT-AC 1 '~5452 ASLT 5-MS-FEAR BOD HRM-HANDS-ETC-ADLT-ACQ 1 ~5476 ASLT 5-MS-FEAR BOD HRM-REPL F-ARM-CHLD-ST 2 qL341 DOM ASLT-MS-INFLT BODILY H~.RM-OTH WEAP-AD-FAM 1 AL351 DOM ASLT-MS-INFLT BODILY HARM-HANDS-AD-FAM 3 AL354 DOM ASLT-MS-INFLT BODILY HARM-~uNDS-CH-FAM 2 AL442 DOM ASLT-MS-FEAR BODILY HARM-OTH WEAP-AD-ACQ 1 B1260 BURG 1-OCC RES NO FRC-N-UN WEAP-UNK ACT 1 B2360 BURG 2-UNOCC RES FRC-N-UNK WEAP-UNK ACT 1 B3464 BURG 3-UNOCC RES NO FRC-N-UNK WEAP-COM T~IEFT 1 B3494 BURG 3-UNOCC RES NO FRC-U-UNK WEAP-COM THEFT 2 B3764 BURG 3-UNOCC N'RES FRC-N-UNK WEAP-COM THEFT 2 B3864 BURG 3-UNOCC NRES NO FRC-N-UNK WEAP-COM THEFT 1 Page ~un: 29-Jul-98 10:54 CFS08 Primary ISN's only: No 3a[e Reported range: 06/26/98 - 07/25/98 '!range 00:00 - 23:59 each day: '...' How Received: All Activity Resulted: All Dispositions: All Officers/Badges: All Grids: All Patrol Areas: All Days of the week: All MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT Enfors Calls For Service INCIDENT AIgALYSIS BY ACTIVITY CODE AC'TIVITY CODE NUMBER OF DESCRIPTION INCIDENTS 33894 BURG 3-UNOCC NRES NO FRC-U-UNK WEAP-COM THEFT 54790 BURG 4-UNOCC N-RES FRC-U-UNK WEAP-UNK ACT 1 _-37E2 FORGERY-MS-ENDORSE-CHK-200 OR LESS-BUS 1 2A540 DRUGS-SM AMT IN MOT VEH-POSS-MARIJ-UAVK 1 DC500 DRUGS-DRUG PA_RAPH- POS S ES S - UNK - UNK 2 E2700 ESC-FE-FLEE AN OFFICER 1 f ~'~g CPM AGNST FAM-MS-NEGLECT CHLD-OTHER 2 ~2501 TP~AFF-GM-DUI LIQUOR-UNK INJ-UNK VEH 2 '2R01 TRAFF-GM-FAIL TO SUBMIT TO TEST-UNK INJ-MV 1 3501 TRAFF-ACCID-MS-DRIVE UNDER INFLLFENCE 2 3E01 TP~AF-ACC-MS-AL 10 MORE-UNK INJ-MV 1 ,R01 TP~AFFIC MS-FAIL TO SUBMIT TO TEST-~/NK INJ-M~; 1 '6501 ENN3%NCED/DWI W/IN 10 YRS OF FIRST 2 PRI/ALCOHO 1 L1B22 CSC 1-CONTACT-PARENT-UND AGE-13-M 1 ~13001 JUVENILE-ALCOHOL OFFENDER 1 >13005 0IS;ENILE-USE OF TOBACCO 4 M4140 LIQUOR-UNDERAGE CONSUMPTION 18-21 3 M5313 JLrVENI LE - CURFEW 2 M 5350 JU%;EN I LE - RUNAWAY 8 DISTURB PEACE-MS-HARRASSING COMMUNICATIONS N3370 VIOLATION OF ORDER FOR PROTECTION 1 03993 OBSENITY-MS-OTHER ACT-OTH MAT-OT 1 Page 4 Run: 29-Jul-98 10:54 CFS08 Primary ISN's only: NO Date Reported range: 06/26/98 - 07/25/98 Time range each day: 00:00 - 23:59 How Received: All Activity Resulted: All Dispositions: All Officers/Badges: All Grids: All Patrol Areas: Ail Days of the week: Ail ACTIVITY CODE DESCRIPTION MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT Enfors Calls For Service INCIDENT ANALYSIS BY ACTIVITY CODE NUMBER OF INCIDENTS ?1110 PROP DAMAGE-FE-PRIVATE-LSgK INTENT 7!130 PROP DAMAGE-FE-BUSINESS-UN'K INTENT 72110 PROP DAMAGE-GM-PRIVATE-UNK INTENT 1 73110 PROP DAMAGE-MS-PRIVATE-UNK INTENT 6 ?3330 TRESPASS-MS-BUSINESS-UNK INTENT 2 73159 THEFT-501-2500-FE-MOTOR VEH-OTH PROP 2 iS169 THEFT-501-2500-FE-WATERCRAFT-OTH PROP 2 7F029 THEFT-201-500-GM-BUILDING-OTH PROP 1 ~?059 THEFT-201-500-GM-YARDS-OTH PROP t 7159 THEFT-201-500-GM-MOTOR VEH-OTH PROP 1 3021 THEFT-LESS 200-MS-BUILDING-MONEY 1 3029 THEFT-LESS 200-MS-BUILDING-OTH PROP 1 ?G039 THEFT-LESS 200-MS-COIN MACH-OTH PROP 1 [G059 THEFT-LESS 200-MS-YARDS-OTHR PROP 1 ?G061 THEFT-LESS 200-MS-MAILS-MONEY 1 ?G150 THEFT-LESS 200-MS-MOTORVEH-UNKNOWN 1 ?Gl51 THEFT-LESS 200-MS-MOTOR VEH-MONEY 1 FG159 THEFT-LESS 200-MS-MOTOR rEM-OTHER TG169 THEFT-LESS 200-MS-WATERCRAFT-OTH PROP 2 v0081 VEH-UNKNOWN-MS-TAMPER WIT~-ENTER-AUTO 1 VA029 VEH-MORE THAN 2500-FE-THEFT-BOAT-Ff~RI W3980 WEAPONS-MS-OTHER ACT-FIREWORKS-NO CHAR 3 oI Page Run: 29-Jul-98 10:54 CFS08 MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT Primary ISN's only: No Dase Reported range: 06/26/98 - 07/25/98 C ~[,range each day: 00:00 - 23:59 ~ How Received: All Activity Resulted: All Dispositions: All Officers/Badges: All Grids: All Patrol Areas: All Days of the week: All Enfors Calls For Service INCIDENT ANALYSIS BY ACTIVITY CODE ACTIVITY CODE DESCRIPTION NUMBER OF INCIDENTS X3080 CRIM AGNST ADMN JUST-MS-OBST LEGAL PROCESS 13104 SEX RELTD-MS-SOLICIT-UNK UNDER 13 Page Report Totals: 341 ~un; 29-Jul-98 15:44 OFF01 Pr:mary ISN's only: No Date Reported range: 06/26/98 - 07/25/98 Time range each day: 00:00 - 23:59 Dispositions: All Activity codes: All Officers/Badges: All Grids: All MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT Enfors Offense Report OFFENSE ACTIVITY DISPOSITIONS Page 1 A5352 %5452 %5476 AL341 '~L351 ~L354 '.L442 -1260 -2360 .%464 ~494 ~764 5864 -3894 -4790 ~37E2 !A540 ~C500 ~2700 ~3069 32501 J2R01 J3501 ACT ACTIVITY 2ODE DESCRIPTION ASLT 5-MS-INFLICT BD ~RM-HANDS-ASLT-AC ASLT 5-MS-FEAR BOD HRM-HANDS-ETC-ADLT-ACQ ASLT 5-MS-FEAR BOD HRM-REPL F-ARM-CHLD-ST DOM ASLT-MS-INFLT BODILY HARM-OTH WEAP-AD-FAM DOM ASLT-MS-INFLT BODILY HARM-HANDS-AD-FAM DOM ASLT-MS-INFLT BODILY HARM-HANDS-CH-FAM DOM ASLT-MS-FEAR BODILY HARM-OTH WEAP-AD-ACQ BURG 1-OCC RES NO FRC-N-UN WEAP-UNK ACT BURG 2-UNOCC RES FRC-N-UNK WEAP-UNK ACT BURG 3-UNOCC RES NO FRC-N-UNK WEAP-COM THEFT BURG 3-UNOCC RES NO FRC-U-UNK WEAP-COM THEFT BURG 3-UNOCC NRESFRC-N-UNK WEAP-COM THEFT BURG 3-UNOCC N'RES NO FRC-N-UNK WEAP-COM THEFT BURG 3-UNOCC NRESNO FRC-U-UNK WEAP-COM THEFT BURG 4-UNOCC NRES FRC-U-LrNK WEAP-UN-K ACT FORGERY-MS-ENDORSE-CHK-200 OR LESS-BUS DRUGS-SM AMT IN MOT VEH-POSS-MARIJ-UNK DRUGS-DRUG PARAPHrPOSSESS-UNK-UNq( ESC-FE-FLEE AN OFFICER CRM AGNST FAM-MS-NEGLECT CHLD-OTHER TRAFF-GM-DUI LIQUOR-UNK INJ-UNq( VEH TRAFF-GM-FAIL TO SUBMIT TO TEST-UNK INJ-MV TP-AFF-ACCID-MS-DRIVE UNDER INFLUENCE ..... OFFENSES CLEARED OFFENSES UN- ACTUAL ADD-LT JTJVENILE BY EX- PERCENT REPORTED FOUNDED OFFENSES PENDING ARREST ARREST CEPTION TOTAL CLEARED 1 0 1 0 i 0 0 1 100.0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 2 0 2 1 0 0 1 1 50.0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 3 0 3 0 1 0 2 3 100.0 2 0 2 1 0 1 0 1 50.0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0. 1 0 i 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 I 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 2 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0.0 2 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0.0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 i 0 1 i 0 0 0 0 0.0 i 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 I 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 I 0 1 0 1 0 0 i 100.0 2 0 2 0 2 0 0 2 100.0 I 0 i 0 I 0 0 i 100.0 2 I I I 0 0 0 0 0.0 2 0 2 0 2 0 0 2 100 1 0 1 0 I 0 0 1 100.0 2 0 2 0 2 0 0 2 100.0 Run: 29-Jul-98 15:44 OFF01 primary ISN's only: No  Reported range: 06/26/98 - 07/25/98 ~ange each day: 00:O0 - 23:59 '"'-,- Dispositions: All Activity codes: All Officers/Badges: All Grids: All MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT Enfors Offense Report OFFENSE ACTIVITY DISPOSITIONS ACT ACTIVITY OFFENSES UN- ACTUAL FODE DESCRIPTION REPORTED FOUNDED OFFENSES PENDING 33E01 33R01 36501 L!B22 !<3001 '<3005 '.14140 '15350 13370 :993 lll0 ~'!130 :2110 P3110 P3330 TRAF-ACC-MS-AL 10 MORE-UNK INJ-MV TR3%FFIC-MS-FAIL TO SUBMIT TO TEST-UNK INJ-MV ENHANCED/DWI W/IN 10 ]fRS OF FIRST 2 PRI/ALCOHO CSC 1-CONTACT-PARENT-UND AGE-13-M JUVENILE-ALCOHOL OFFENDER JUVENILE-USE OF TOBACCO LIQUOR-UNDERAGE CONSUMPTION 18-21 JUVENILE-CURFEW JUVENILE-RUNAWAY DISTURB PEACE-MS-HARRASSING COM/~ICATIONS VIOLATION OF ORDER FOR PROTECTION OBSENITY-MS-OTHER ACT-OTH MAT-OT PROP DAMAGE-FE-PRIVATE-UNK INTENT PROP DAMAGE-FE-BUSINESS-UNK INTENT PROP DAMAGE-GM-PRIVATE-UNK INTENT PROP DAMAGE-MS-PRIVATE-I/NK INTENT TRESPASS-MS-BUSINESS-UNK INTENT TC159 THEFT-501-2500-FE-MOTOR VEH-O~ PROP TC169 THEFT-501-2500-FE-WATERCRAFT-OTH PROP TF029 THEFT-201-500-GM-BUILDING-OTH PROP I } THEI~-201-500-GM-Y/h~DS-OTH PROP TF159 THEFT-201-500-GM-MOTOR VEH-OTH PROP TG021 THEFT-LESS 200-MS-BUILDING-MONEY 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 4 0 4 0 3 0 3 0 2 0 2 0 8 0 8 3 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 5 0 5 5 2 0 2 1 2 0 2 2 2 0 2 2 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 Page 2 ..... OFFENSES CLEkRED ADULT JUVENILE BY EX- PERCENT ARREST ARREST CEPTION TOTAL CLEARED 1 0 0 1 100.0 1 0 0 1 100.0 1 0 0 1 100.0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 1 0 1 100.0 0 4 0 4 100.0 3 0 0 3 100 . 0 0 2 0 2 100.0 0 4 1 5 62.5 0 0 0 0 0.0 1 0 0 1 100 . 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 1 0 1 50.0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0.O Kun~ 29-Jul-98 15:44 OFF01 Primary ISN's only: NO Date Reported range: 06/26/98 - 07/25/98 ?~me range each day: 00:00 - 23:59 Dispositions: All Activity codes: All Officers/Badges: All Grids: All MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT Enfors Offense Report OFFENSE ACTIVITY DISPOSITIONS Page ..... OFFENSES CLEARED .... ACT ACTIVITY OFFENSES UN- ACTUAL ADULT JI/VENILE BY EX- JODE DESCRIPTION PERCENT ......... REPORTED FOUNDED OFFENSES PENDING ARREST ;%RREST CEPTION TOTAL CLEARED ?G029 THEFT-LESS 200-MS-BUILDING-OTH PROP 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 ?G039 THEFT-LESS 200-MS-COIN MACH-OT~ PROP 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 ?G059 THEFT-LESS 200-MS-YARDS-OTHR PROP 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 ?G061 THEFT-LESS 200-MS-MAILS-MONEY 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 ?G!50 THEFT-LESS 200-MS-MOTOR VEH-UNKNOWN 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0. 0 ?Gl51 THEFT-LESS 200-MS-MOTOR VEH-MONEY 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 ~3~59 THEFT-LESS 200-MS-MOTOR VEH-OTHER 3 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 0.0 ['3169 THEFT-LESS 200-MS-WATERCRAFT-OTH PROP 2 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 .'O081 VEH-UNKNOWN-MS-TAMPER WITH-ENTER-AUTO 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 'A329 VEH-MORE THAN 2500-FE-THEFT-BOAT-MTRI 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 · .3~80 WEAPONS-MS-OTHER ACT-FIREWORKS-NO CHAR 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 100.0 i-~$80 CRIM AGNST ADMN J]3ST-MS-OBST LEGAL PROCESS 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 100.0 13104 SEX RELTD-MS-SOLICIT-UNK b-NDER 13 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 '*** Report Totals: 92 1 91 54 19 13 5 37 40.6 City of Mound 08/03/98 Monthly Report Utilities Month of: July 1998 Residential Commercial No. of Customers: Water Sewer Water Used: (in 1,000 gallons) Billing: Water Sewer Recycle Payments: Water Utility-98 Total 1,102 123 1,225 1,111 123 1,234 21,665 3,528 Total Sewer Recycle 25,193 $35,827 $6,993 $42,820 $68,583 $18,726 $87,309 $6,010 $124 $6,134 $110,420 $25.843 $136,263 $32,468 $4,758 $37,226 $65,659 $14,116 $79,775t $5,717 $102 $5,8191 $103,844 $18,976 $122,820 Total LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT BOARD WORKSHOP/PLANNING SESSION 6:00 P.M., Wednesday, July 8, 1998 Grays Freshwater Center .CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Members Presenl: Douglas Babcock, Tonka Bay; Craig Nelson, Spring Park; Gene Partyka, Minnetrista; Sheldon Wert, Greenwood. Also present: Nancy Randall, Administrative Technician; Gregory Nybeck, Executive Director. Members Absent: Bert Foster, Deephaven; Andrea Ahrens, Mound; Bob Ambrose, Wayzata; Kent Dahlen, Minnetonka Beach; Craig Eggers, Victoria; Tom Gilman, Excelsior; Greg Kitchak, Minnetonka; Lili McMiHan, Orono; Robert Rascop, Shorewood; Herb Suerth, Woodland. 1. Review of Management Section (pages 65-84). The Board reviewed this section of the Management Plan. The following comments were made, with the following updates/changes recommended: The Role of the Cities The coordination of trash collection at public accesses with the County was discussed. There was debate whether this role should be deleted. ..The Role of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) · The role of assisting cities and DNR regarding state-wide standards for management of shoreland areas was discussed (page 68, # 5). The Board discussed how the Hennepin Conservation District has gotten active in this role and stated the Plan should be updated to identify this. · The roles developing and implementing programs to control and minimize the use of phosphorous fertilizers and pesticides in the watershed (page 68, # 7 and 8) were reviewed by the Board. They believed these roles needed to be updated. The Role of the DNR · The Board noted a coordinated dredging permit program for Lake Minnetonka with the MCWD and LMCD has been accomplished (page 69, # 1). · The Board noted the development of shoreland ordinances has been accomplished with the exception of the City of Spring Park (page 69, # 2). · The Board noted that Hennepin Conservation District should be added to the role of surveying and protecting wetlands (page 69, #4). Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Workshop/Planning Session July 8, 1998 Page 2 · The Board noted that Hennepin Parks should be added to the agencies to develop water quality criteria and to measure water quality (page 69, # 6). · The Board noted that "eradicate" should be changed to "control" regarding eurasian watermilfoil and other exotic marine plants and animals (page 69, # §). The Role of the Suburban Hennepin Regional Park District The Board noted the role of planning, acquiring and developing, public boat accesses, swimming beaches, scenic lookouts, and fishing piers should be updated to identify the Lake Minnetonka Regional Park has been constructed and opened (page 69, # 2). The Board also noted that fishing pier responsibilities should be moved to the DNR. The Role of Hennepin Countg The Board noted the Management Plan should elaborate more on the role of the Hennepin County Public Works Department (page 70). The Role of the LMCD · The Board noted the District needs to emphasize more that the LMCD is to provide focused view and advocating for the lake (page 70, # 1). It was noted" the lake needs to be treated as one entity. · The Boar~l' questioned whether the LMCD could facilitate and assure that other agencies are meeting their objective outlined in this Plan (page 7 I, # 5). The Board recommended this be softened up. · The Board noted the paragraph on page 71 that refers to LMCD staff and consultants should be updated. · The Board noted on page 72, the LMCD should "encourage and support" safe boating education programs rather than "coordinate" them. THE COSTS AND FUNDING OF LAKE MANAGEMENT .Cities The Board noted that the preparation of new shoreland ordinances with the cities has been completed (page 73, # 1). Lake Minnetonka Conservation District The Board questioned whether it is feasible to explore increasing its current permit fees as well as user fees including a permit fee for boat ramp users. 2. Discuss next Section to be Reviewed. The Board decided to continue discussion of this section of the Management Plan starting with "Management Structure Policies" on page 77 at the 8/5/98 Workshop/Planning Session scheduled. Lake-~'dnnetonka Conservation District Workshop/Planning Session July 8, 1998 Page 3 3. Additional Business. There was no additional business. 4. Adjournment. There being no further business, Chair Babcock adjourned the meeting at 8:02 p.m. Douglas Babcock, Chair Eugene A. Partyka, Secretary Minnehaha Creek Watershed District ]mproving Quali~y of Water, Quali~y of Life RECEIVED AU$ 3 Gray Freshwater Center Hwys. 15 & 19, Navarre Mail: 2500 Shadywood Road Excelsior, MN 55331-9578 Phone: (612) 471-0590 Fax: (612) 471-0682 Email: admin @ minnehahacreek.org Web Site: www. minnehahacreek.org Board of Managers Pamela G. Blixt James Calkins Lance Fisher Monica Gross Thomas W. LaBounty Thomas Maple, Jr. Malcolm Reid Notice Public Information and Public Hearing Dates For Proposed Rule B Revision The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District has scheduled the following dates and locations to provide and solicit information regarding recommended revisions to the District's Rule B which addresses stormwater management. Public Information Meeting: Thursday, August 13, 1998 ~ 6:30 PM St. Louis Park City Halt 5005 Minnetonka Blvd St. Louis Park, MN Public Information Meeting: Thursday, August 20, 1998 ~ 6:30 PM Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Office Gray Freshwater Center 2500 Shadywood Road (Hwy 19just south of Hwy 15) Navarre, MN Public Hearing: Thursday, August 27, 1998 ~ 6:30 PM Minnetonka Community Center 14600 Minnetonka Blvd. Minnetonka, MN Comments will be received at the Public Hearing. Written comments may be submitted to the address below through August 27, 1998: Minnehaha Creek Watershed District 2500 Shadywood Road Excelsior, MN 55331-9578 RECEIVED AUG 6 l Lq8 Those Listed Below Jerry D. Smrcka, Traffic Operations CSAH 15 Reconstruction in Orono . Hennep i3 gnty TO: ~ August 5, 1998 FROM: Engine~ ' SUBJECT: On Monday, August 10,1998 construction activity will resume on CSAH 15 (Iq. Shoreline Dr.) between Orono Orchard Rd. and E. Hillside Dr. Traffic will be maintained through the construction area, but motorists will experience occasional delays. Work on this project will continue through 1998 and be completed in the spring of 1999. Hennepin County Board of Commissioners County Administrator Dept of Public Works - V.T. Genzlinger Transportation Division Staff Sheriffs Dept. Sheriffs Radio Tower Library Director - Charles Brown G.S.I.S. - Stephanie McNamara Minnesota Dept. of Transportation Metro District Engr. - C. Siggemd Div. Traffic Engr. - C. Hudrlik Traffic Management Center - Operations Road Information & Permit Office Minnesota Highway Patrol East Minnesota Highway Patrol West Municipalities: City of Orono, Wayzata, Minnetonka, Spring Park, Mound and Long Lake Manager, Dir. of Public Works Fire Chief, Police Chief School Districts-276, 277, 278. 284 Superintendent Transportation Director Emergency Service Methodist Hospital - Emergency Hennepin County Medical Center No. Memorial Med Ctr - Emergency Waconia Ridgeview Hospital - Ambulance Service Health Span Transportation Medic Control Minnesota Track Center Media Star Tribune, Editor Sun Publications, Editor The Pioneer, Editor Radio Station WCCO Metropolitan Traffic Control American Automobile Association Ken Mohr, Domestic Travel Transit MCTO Operating Division Dick Loefler, Mgr., St. Ops. Transportation Department 1600 Prairie Drive Medina, MN 55340-5421 II Recycled Paper 6 lg,,q8 You're invited to the Dedication and Open House at Hennepin County's new Public Works Facility 1600 Prairie Drive Medina, MN 55340 Friday, August 14, 1998 Dedication Open House 10:30 a.m. 10 a.m. - 1 p.m. This new building makes greater use of recycled and recyclable building materials than perhaps any new building in the state. It replaces the county's 40-year-old facility in Hopkins. Join us to see exciting demonstrations of Hennepin's GIS operation and how the county "changes oil and stores salt!" Randy Johnson, Chair Hennepin County Board of Commissioners Penny Steele, Chair Hennepin County Public Service Committee CALL TO ORDER LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS AGENDA 7:00 PM, Wednesday, August 12, 1998 Tonka Bay City Hall ': RECEIvEI3/ U I 0 1998 ROLL CALL CHAIR ANNOUNCEMENTS, Chair Babcock READING OF MINUTES - 7/22/98 LMCD Regular Board Meeting PUBLIC COMMENTS - Persons in attendance, subjects not on agenda (5 min.) CONSENT AGENDA- Consent Agenda items identified with a (*) will be approved in one motion unless a Board member request a discussion of any item, in which case the item will be removed from the consent agenda. WATER STRUCTURES A) Ordinance Amendment, Second reading of an ordinance relating to docks owned and operated by law enforcement agencies, amending LMCD Code by adding new Subd. 6 to Section 2.02; B) Hennepin County Sheriff's Water Patrol, Spring Park Bay, Continued discussion to consider new multiple dock license and variance applications for seven Boat Storage Units (BSU); C) Additional Business; LAKE A) USE & RECREATION (*) Matt Blair Bass Tournament, staff recommends refund of $50 special event fee; B) (*) Staff recommends full refund of $500 new on-sale Beer license application deposits for the charter boats Lady of the Lake and Driftaway; C) Discussion of draft 1998 Lake Minnetonka Shoreline Count; D) Update on 1998 LCMR application; E) Additional Business; FINANCIAL A) Audit of vouchers for payment (8/1/98 - 8/15/98); B) Additional Business; 8. 9. 10. EWMIEXOTICS TASK FORCE A) Staff update on plans to overhaul EWM harves-~rs;' B) Additional Business; SAVE THE LAKE ADMINISTRATION A) B) C) EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT OLD BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS ADJOURNMENT Continued discussion on potential District office spaces; Update on vacant Administrative Technician position; Additional Business; RECEIVED AUI] 10 lg98 DRAFT LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING 7:00 PM, Wednesday, July 22, 1998 Tonka Bay City Hall CALL TO ORDER Chair Babcock called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. ROLL CALL Members present: Douglas Babcock Tonka Bay; Kent Dahlen, Minnetonka Beach; Bert Foster, Deephaven; Greg Kitchak, Minnetonka; Lili McMillan, Orono; Craig Nelson, Spring Park; Gene Partyka, Minnetrista; Bob Rascop, Shorewood; Also present Charles LeFevere, LMCD Counsel; Gregory Nybeck, Executive Director; Diane Samis, Administrative Assistant. Members Absent: Andrea Ahrens, Mound; Craig Eggers, Victoria; Sheldon Weft, Greenwood. Tom Gilman, Excelsior; Bob Ambrose, Wayzata; Herb Suerth, Woodland. CHAIR ANNOUNCEMENTS There were no Chair announcements READING OF MINUTES - 6/24/98 LMCD Regular Board Meeting 7/8/98 Board Workshop/Planning Session MOTION: Foster moved, Partyka seconded to approve the minutes of the 6/24/98 Regular Board Meeting as submitted. VOTE: Ayes (6), Abstained (2, Nelson and Dahlen); motion carried. MOTION: Partyka moved, Babcock seconded to approve the minutes of the 7/8/98 Board Workshop/Planning Session as submitted. VOTE: Ayes (3), Abstained (5, Rascop, McMillan, Dahlen, Foster, and Kitchak); motion carried. PUBLIC COM3/IENTS - Persons in attendance, subjects not on agenda (5 min.). There were no comments from persons in attendance on subjects not on the agenda. CONSENT AGENDA Foster moved, Partyka seconded to approve the consent agenda as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. Items so approved include lB, Minutes from 7/10/98 EWM/Exotics Task Force meeting, 2C, staff recommends approval of 1998 renewal without change multiple dock license for Meadowbrook Boat Club, and 4A, Hennepin County Sheriff Water Patrol Significant Activity Report. Lake Minnetonka Conservation District ' Regular Board Meeting July 22, 1998 Page 2 PUBLIC HEARINGS Lady of the Lake, Inc., Consideration of new on-sale Beer License application for the charter boat Lady of the Lake. Babcock opened the public hearing at 7:03 P.M. He asked the applicant if they had any comments or would like to provide background at this time. Terrence Jungers was present on behalf of the applicant. He stated he had no comments and would respond to any questions by the Board. Foster asked the applicant to explain what their usual practice had been in previous years. Jungers stated in past years, they had not made application for on-sale beer licenses because they have not sold beer on the charter boat. He added his customers have brought on any beer or liquor that has been consumed on the boat. He noted he has not provided any employees in the past to assist these customers in the serving of this beer or liquor. Nybeck clarified that in past years, staff had not pursued beer licenses for the activities described by the applicant. He added after staff checked into this with the Liquor Control Division this past winter, it was clarified that this ac.tivity would require a non-intoxicating malt liquor license and consumption and display permit. He asked for further clarification from LeFevere. LeFevere stated in past years, the interpretation by staff of the activity described by the applicant was that a beer license and a consumption and display permit were not needed. He added after discussion with the Liquor Control Division, it was determined that charter boats are establishments and are subject to the same liquor laws as businesses on land. Foster asked when would the license be effective. Nybeck stated if it is approved by the Board, it would become effective tonight. There being no further comments, Babcock closed the public hearing at 7:07 P.M. Custom Charters, Consideration of new on-sale Beer License application for the charter boat Driftaway. Babcock opened the public hearing at 7:07 P.M. He asked the applicant if they had any comments or would like to provide background at this time. There being no comments, Babcock closed the public hearing at 7:08 P.M. MOTION: Foster moved, Rascop seconded to approve the new on-sale Beer license application for the charter boat Lady of the Lake in 1998. Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting July 22, 1998 VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. Page MOTION: Foster moved, Dahlen seconded to approve the new on-sale Beer license application for the charter boat Driftaway in 1998. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. EWM/EXOTICS TASK FORCE A. 1998 EWM Harvesting Program, update from Project Manager Gene Strommen. Strommen updated the Board on the harvesting program. He noted: · Approximately 491 acres have been harvested to date. He added he believed approximately 600 acres will be harvested once all the bays have had either their first or second cut. · Phelps Bay, S. Upper Lake, W. Upper Lake, Cooks Bay, Emerald Lake, Seton Lake, Black Lake, Carman Bay, Old Channel Bay, Gideon Bay, Excelsior Bay, St. Albans Bay, Lafayette Bay, Echo Bay, Crystal Bay, North Arm, and Maxwell Bay have already been harvested. He added the crew is in Grays Bay with plans to harvest Wayzata Bay, Browns Bay, and Smiths Bay in the near future. · Second cuts will be evaluated once these bays have been harvested. He stated historically heavy growth bays, including Phelps and Carman Bays, will probably be targeted. · Harvesting will probably end on the week of 8/10 because of the lack of weeds. He noted weed growth appears to be down; however, it is heavy where it is growing. · The Hennepin Parks harvester has not been available this summer because of mechanical problems. · Them appears to be a need to overhaul the fleet of four harvesters once the machines are taken out of the water. He stated the focus of this overhaul project would to be evaluate all hoses and moving parts. He noted staff would report back to the Board in August to recommend an overall budget and hourly rate for this maintenance work. · Staff is looking into the evaluation for the purchase of a fifth harvester for 1999. He noted staff would report back to the Board in September with further details. · The City of Greenwood recently hosted a meeting regarding milfoil on St. Albans Bay. He noted it was well attended and that a focal point of discussion was the 15% littoral zone established by the DNR for chemical treatments. Strommen asked for comments or questions from the Board. Kitchak asked Strommen if he recalled the DNR denying a permit for variance from the 15 % littoral zone policy for chemical treatments? Strommen stated he believed the District was denied for a variance from this policy for. chemical treatment in the vicinity of Diamond Reef some years ago. Kitchak informed the Board he had recently ridden with a harvester operator on Grays Bay. Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting July 22, 1998 Page 4 He added he observed a difference in speed of the harvesters and the amount they cut in the same amount of time. He stated he believed it is time to perform a complete overhaul of the machines as recommended by Strommen. Foster stated he believed it might make sense to replace ail applicable parts rather than purchase a fifth harvester. B. 7/10/98 EWM/Exotics Task Force meeting report. Nybeck stated Strommen provided a similar overview to Task Force members at the 7/10/98 meeting. He noted two additional topics were discussed at this meeting. They included the need to work with transporters on spraying boats down prior to launching them and the growth of chara algae in Lake Minnetonka this year. Strommen added there was discussion on the vandalism and theft of buoys associated with weevil research program coordinated by Dr. Newman in Smiths Bay. He noted he coordinated the distribution of a press release to the local newspapers regarding this. D. Additional Business. Nybeck stated he had talked to Herb Suerth who could not attend this meeting. He noted Suerth would like a Board member to volunteer to be Vice-Chair of the EWM/Exotics Task Force. He stated Suerth has informed him because of some upcoming conflicts, he might not be able to attend upcoming meetings. Nybeck aiso informed the Board that the sailing group on Lake Minnetonka has taken the lead of boat spraydown. He noted severai sailors are coming from out-of-town for a regatta on Lake Minnetonka. He added the intern is spraying boats down an estimated 100 boats in Deephaven from 10 a.m. to 8 p.m. today. e WATER STRUCTURES A. Ordinance Amendment, First reading of an ordinance relating to docks owned and operated by law enforcement agencies, amending LMCD Code by adding new Subd. 6 to Section 2.02. MOTION: Rascop moved, Foster seconded to approve the first reading of the ordinance amendment, to waive 2nd and 3rd readings, and adopt the ordinance amendment. Mike Brandt, representing the applicant, informed the Board that-one of the boats being stored at the Sheriff's Water Patrol docks was a workboat from his department Babcock stated he would like to see a change to the draft code amendment that would allow for boat storage at law enforcement docks to be exclusively for law enforcement purposes. He added he recailed when this was discussed at the last Board meeting, he believed the intent of the Board was to exempt boat storage at this dock for law enforcement Lake M~nnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting July 22, 1998 purposes, not for a Public Works boat. Page Parytka stated he agreed it should restrict boats to law enforcement purposes at the Sheriff's Water Patrol docks. LeFevere suggested the draft code amendment could be changed by amending the last sentence under Subd. 6 to read "slip spaces owned and operated by city, county or state law enforcement agencies and operated exclusively for law enforcement purposes shall not be counted". Babcock stated he would have concern exempting slips spaces at the Sheriff's Water Patrol docks if they are being used for access to downtown Spring Park. He added he would have less trouble if slip spaces were being used as public access to the Sheriff's Water Patrol itself. Rascop questioned how the proposed amendments would impact the special density license. LeFevere stated he believed this code amendment would not be affected because it exempts only for law enforcement at city and county docks. Brandt stated their workboat is periodically used for undercover work by the Sheriff's Water Patrol. Rascop stated he believed amending the draft code amendment, with the language recommended by LeFevere, is appropriate. He suggested a friendly amendment that only .first reading of the ordinance amendment be approved. Foster agreed to the friendly amendment. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. B. Hennepin County Environmental Services, Spring Park Bay, Continued discussion to consider a new multiple dock license, a special density license, and a variance application to accommodate 72 Boat Storage Units (BSU). Babcock reviewed the four questions that staff was directed to check into regarding this agenda item. He noted: · Staff has clarified that previous conversions were allowed for this property. · Staff has indicated it is difficult to determine whether specific property interest rights were brought to the LMCD's attention when the special density license was granted. Nybeck stated it was difficult to specifically determine based on research of the files. He noted the special density license application indicated the use of these docks would be for public, private, and multiple dwelling use. He added it was unclear to staff whether it was clearly stated up front when the special density license application was approved that the slips were associated with deeded rights. Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting July 22, 1998 Page 6 LeFevere stated there is no reason to believe Hennepin County intended to mislead the LMCD in anyway. He added the private and multiple dwelling use of this property should have red- flagged the District to ask tougher questions. He concluded he believed there is no need to assign fault. · Babcock noted staff has indicated that what has been historically built on this site has varied from year to year. · Babcock noted staff has indicated in 1977, there were 40 transient and 14 overnight slips. He concluded he believed staff has outlined the issues that merit Board discussion. He suggested the Board begin with the dock length variance request for the Sheriff's Water Patrol docks that extends 8' beyond 100', and the request to waive application fees. Nybeck stated he had discussed this issue with Sgt. Schilling. He noted Sgt. Schilling could not attend because of a prior conflict; however, Sgt. Schilling has requested the additional 8' from an operational perspective. MOTION: Rascop moved, Nelson seconded to direct attorney to prepare Findings and Order for approval of the 8' dock length variance for the Sheriff's Water Patrol docks. Rascop suggested the Board discuss the hardship related to the proposed variance. Nelson stated a possible hardship is for maneuvering of the boats at the docks. Foster questioned whether the dock length variance is necessary. Babcock added that water depth in the area appears to be sufficient. Nelson stated he believed that 8' for maneuvering of boats is not that large of request from the Sheriff' s Water Patrol. Partyka stated he is inclined to favor to the variance request, provided they agree to move the docks into the 100' zone in the future when possible. Babcock expressed concern in approving a variance on a dock configuration rather than a physical hardship. He suggested the Board consider approving a one-year temporary variance for this year and require them to comply with Code limitations next year. McMillan stated she believed the 100' restriction is too restrictive. She suggested the Board consider changing this in the future. Babcock expressed concern with amending the Code, especially for commercial operations. Foster stated in residential situations, docks might be self-policing because of cost restrictions. He used shallow water areas of the lake as an example that residences should be allowed to go Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting July 22, 1998 Page 7 out beyond the 100'. Babcock stated in a shallow water area, there are already Code provisions that allow for docks to go out beyond 100'. McMillan suggested this be looked into in the future when the Code is reviewed. Kitchak stated he had recently visited the transient docks established for the Minnetonka Mist. He expressed concern with dock layout because they are licensed for three boats at each dock and the reality is that only one boat can be stored at them because the space between them is too narrow. He suggested the applicant consider longer docks with greater space between them. Brandt stated the businesses that use these docks are responsible for placing them in the water and are limited to a dock length of 88'. Kitchak stated a hardship to consider for the proposed variance is to facilitate for the movement of the type of watercraft the Sheriff's Water Patrol uses. Foster stated a hardship is to facilitate the special needs of the Sheriff's Water Patrol for emergency watercraft operation. Babcock questioned if the proposed recommendations meet the grounds for a physical hardship? LeFevere stated he is unsure whether the Water Patrol can reconstruct the dock and comply with the 100' length limitation. He added it might be appropriate to outline a hardship in the minutes rather than drafting Findings. Babcock stated he would vote against the variance because he believed there are no physical hardships for this site. Nybeck asked the Board whether they would like to waive the variance fees as requested by the Sheriff's Water Patrol? Rascop and Nelson agreed to a friendly amendment to waive fees for the Sheriff's Water Patrol dock length variance request. Partyka expressed concern in that there is a physical hardship in the request. He reiterated the need to convince the Sheriff's Water Patrol to agree to bring the dock into 100' after this boating season. Foster recommended a friendly amendment that the LMCD grants this variance for this year and would grant it for future years provided it is a necessity. He added the LMCD requests the Sheriff's Water Patrol review their boat driving procedures in order to bring the dock in from 108' to 100'. Rascop and Nelson agreed to the friendly amendment. Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting July 22, 1998 Page 8 Rascop stated he would like to see the wording in the minutes before they are sent to the Sheriff's Water Patrol. Kitchak stated he is uncomfortable with the motion the way it is written. VOTE: Ayes (4), Nayes (4; Babcock, Kitchak, Partyka, and Nelson); Motion failed. MOTION: Kitchak moved, Nelson seconded to approve a temporary dock length variance for the Sheriff's Water Patrol docks for one-year and waiving related fees. Foster asked for clarification on what to transmit to Sheriff2. Kitchak stated he believed staff could communicate there is a need to rationalize a physical hardship if they want to continue the temporary variance beyond one-year or there is a need to bring the dock into compliance with Code. LeFevere stated based on the public heating for the dock length variance, he recalled the justification for it was that they need this. He noted that might be correct but it would difficult to justify the facts based on that testimony. Kitchak stated this option would allow them to decide how they want to proceed for next year. Brandt stated he understand what the Board is discussing; however, he noted the Sheriff's Water Patrol will not be happy. He noted he believed they vehemently want approval of the dock length variance. MOTION: Nelson moved, Rascop seconded to table further discussion of the dock length variance for the Sheriff's Water Patrol docks to the 8/12/98 Board meeting. VOTE: Ayes (6), Nayes (2; Babcock and Foster); motion to table passed. Partyka stated the Sheriff's Water Patrol needs to be notified in writing there is a need for them to outline at the 8/12/98 meeting what the physical hardship(s) are for the dock length variance request and why they need it. Foster stated this letter needs to explain that the request has been tabled and not denied. LeFevere stated if the Bo~d determines a physical hardship does not exist for the dock length variance request for Sheriff's Water Patrol docks, this might be a case for a Code amendment if it makes sense. He used public safety as an example. Babcock stated the next issue that needs to be addressed by the Board is the 65 BSU's controlled by Hennepin County Environmental Department at the east-end of the property. He asked for Board discussion on options. Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting July 22, 1998 Page 9 Partyka stated he believed the Board should start from the premise that the applicant is not entitled to a special density license. He noted this although they were approved for one because of errors or omissions. Rascop stated he believed the only way to allow them to continue to have the 65 slips is through some form of grandfathering once the special density license is removed. Foster questioned how the Cities of Wayzata and Deephaven were approved for special density licenses? Babcock reviewed minutes from the 6/22/98 meeting. He noted minutes from that meeting state the general public has access to the municipal docks even though there is an extensive waiting list at both facilities. He added in both facilities, the minutes reflect they are more accessible to the public rather than the applications that are being discussed. LeFevere stated he recalled discussion that they are available to a larger segment of the public. He added it is a degree of interpretation and that the Hennepin County situation has deeded property whereas neither Wayzata nor Deephaven are. Babcock stated he believed the Board had two choices to consider. He noted if the draft code amendment is adopted exempting law enforcement facilities, he believed the number of 65 slips could remain. First. he believed the Board needs to decide whether 40 transient slips should remain. Second, he believed the Board needs to decide on the special density license application. He stated he believed the Board should deny the pending special density license application and allow the one approved to remain. Partyka questioned whether an existing special density license should be allowed to continue due to the fact that the Board knows it should not have been granted. Nybeck stated he had discussed possible action on the pending special density license application previously with LeFevere. He added whether the Board determines to allow conversion of the six slips from transient to overnight storage, he believed the previously approved special density license should be rescinded because the facility does not conform to District code. LeFevere stated he believed it does not make sense to continue a special density license. He noted there is a legal basis to recognize a mistake has been made. He added this would be explained in the Findings and Order. Foster asked for clarification on what the County is applying for? Babcock stated they are currently licensed for 40 transient and 25 overnight storage slips. added they are requesting to convert six transient to overnight storage slips, thus reducing licensed slips to 34 transient and 31 overnight storage slips. He Kitchak stated there is a buoy placed out there. He asked Brandt if he was aware of this? Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting July 22, 1998 Page 10 Brandt stated he was not aware of it. Foster stated he believed the 40 transient slips are essential to the lake and need to remain. He added he believed mistakes were made by the District and that to correct them, the District should approve 40 transient and 31 overnight storage slips at the site. He concluded this proposal should then be grandfathered in. Babcock questioned how the applicant was sent a previous expectation that they were allowed to have 40 transient and 31 overnight storage slips. Nybeck stated before the Board takes action on the compromise proposed by Foster, three issues needs to be clarified. First, it needs to be clarified that Hennepin County wants to make application for 71 slips. Second, staff is not comfortable adding six slips to a non-conforming facility. He added if the Board is uncomfortable with reducing transient slips down from 40, staff believes the application should be denied. Third, there is already been testimony that there is already congestion with the existing 65 slips approved. He noted adding six additional slips would only add to the situation. Babcock stated he would have trouble supporting 71 slips on 650' of continuous shoreline deeded to the properties in question. He added although the applicant does not qualify for a special density license anymore, the proposed compromise exceeds the 1: 10' allowance by code. He believed there is a case to maintain the transient slips; however, there is not a case to expand slips to 71. LeFevere asked if the commercial businesses that use the transient slips have deeded rights to the property for dockage? Brandt clarified that businesses associated with the transient slips are the Minnetonka Mist, a bait store, a pizza place, a beauty salon, and a restaurant. Babcock asked how many overnight storage slips are installed this year? Brandt stated he believed there are 31. Nelson stated an issue he believed the Board needed to consider is that the public access uses some of the transient spaces available. He added he believed a second make-ready dock is necessary to accommodate the needs of the public access ramp. Babcock stated if the Board desires maintaining 40 transient slips, he believed the Board should deny the application to convert six transient slips. Foster asked for feedback from the applicant on denying the application and maintaining 25 overnight slips? Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting July 22, 1998 Page 11 Brandt stated he understands the Board concern but he is not convinced the neighborhood would. He stated this because the developer sold the properties assuming the properties had dockage rights. Babcock stated he did not believe the District has taken anything away from the parcel because the previously approved 25 overnight storage slips would remain. He added he believed the issue is between the neighborhood and Hennepin County. Kitchak stated he concurred with Babcock that the issue of overnight and transient storage needs to resolve now. Nelson stated the City of Spring Park has indicated that the developers have been told that granting of permits for construction in the neighborhood in question does not give a granted right to a dock. LeFevere stated although the neighborhood might have assumed they had rights to a greater number of overnight storage slips, they still would be required to apply for a new special density license with Board review. He noted they had no right to assume the conversion would be allowed without this Board review. He concluded there could be a case to deny the application and remain at 40 transient and 25 transient slips. Babcock and Partyka stated they believed the number of 65 slips should remain with the make- up of transient and overnight slips to be decided by the Board. Nelson stated he believed the number of 65 slips with the current breakdown should remain. He added if a lawsuit occurs because of this, he believed the District would then have the ability to negotiate. Foster stated he could live with that solution and allow for representatives to come and negotiate then. MOTION: Rascop moved, Nelson seconded to deny the special density license application and to waive related fees; to deny the new multiple dock license application and waive related fees; to renew existing multiple dock license application without change; to rescind the existing special density license; and to grandfather the existing 40 transient and 25 overnight storage slips. Brandt stated the six overnight storage slips that were denied by the Board have been installed already. The consensus of the Board was to allow these slips to remain for 1998 on the condition they are not installed in 1999. Staff was directed to write a letter to the City of Spring Park informing them of the Board decision. Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting July 22, 1998 Page 12 e De Ee Consideration of draft Resolution 96, which would waive fees for law enforcement docks. MOTION: Foster moved, Rascop seconded to adopt Resolution 96 which would waive fees for law enforcement docks. Babcock recommended a friendly amendment in the third paragraph under IA and lB. He noted "utilized entirely" should be substituted for "used". Foster and Rascop agreed to the friendly amendment. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. Additional Business. Babcock asked the Board whether they would like to have attorney prepare a code amendment for the Sheriff's Water Patrol dock regarding dock length. He noted this had been done previously for the Board to consider a few years ago when discussing the Minnetonka Beach docking issue. The consensus of the Board was not to have the attorney prepare a code amendment for the next Board meeting. They stated they would like to have Sheriff's Water Patrol and discuss what physical hardship exists that merits a dock length variance. FINANCIAL A. Audit of vouchers for payment (7/1/98 - 7/31/98). Nelson reviewed the audit of vouchers for payment as submitted. MOTION: Foster moved, Rascop seconded to approve the audit of vouchers for payment for the period of 7/1/98 - 7/31/98 as submitted. Babcock questioned the expenditure for check # 12226. Nybeck stated that expenditure was for the Jim Zimmerman "minimum-wake" buoy approved by the Board. Babcock suggested a line-item be established for revenue and expenditures for this type of activity. VOTE: Motion carded unanimously. B. June financial summary and balance sheet. Nelson reviewed the July financial summary and balance sheet as submitted. Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting July 22, 1998 Page 13 e Babcock stated a change has been made to the balance sheet for the month of June. He noted for General and EWM fund balances, each of them have been separated down to 12/31/97 reserve fund balance and 1998 operating revenue. He recommended this be further clarified by adding a third footnote. MOTION: Foster moved, Babcock seconded to accept the June balance sheet as submitted. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Babcock moved, McMillan seconded to accept the June financial summary as submitted. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. C. Additional Business. There was no additional business. LAKE USE & RECREATION B. Ordinance Amendment, first reading of ordinance relating to motor vehicles, snowmobiles, ATV's, motorboats, and personal watercraft, amending LMCD Code Sections 3.041 and 3.17. ' MOTION: Foster moved, McMillan seconded to approve first reading of the ordinance amendment, to waive second and third readings, and to adopt. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. C. Additional Business. There was no additional business. SAVE THE LAKE There was no business. ADMINISTRATION A. Discussion on potential District office spaces. Nybeck reviewed a staff memo and spreadsheet regarding four potential offices spaces for the District to consider relocating to. He noted this was directive by the Board at the 7/24/98 meeting and that he believed time is of the essence because two potential sites have been leased since the 7/24/98 meeting. The first site he reviewed was Smithtown Crossing in Tonka Bay. He noted the square footage available was 1,424 at a cost of $8.75 per Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting July 22, 1998 Page 14 square foot. He added with construction improvements and utilities, the estimated cost per square foot should be adjusted to $12.54. Kitchak questioned whether the estimate provided by the property manager included all elements of construction improvements including improved lighting and a suspended ceiling. He stated the believed the estimate provided is lower than actual expenses needed to improve the space. Nybeck stated he believed the construction estimates were Iow too because over $22,000 in improvements were made in the current office with significantly less square footage. Babcock asked for feedback regarding cooling and heating in the space. Kitchak stated any improvements and maintenance to the HVAC would be the responsibility of the landlord. Babcock asked why the District would not pursue this space? Nybeck stated if the Board determines that this space is the best of the four presented, that he would recommend the District continue to look for alternative space. Kitchak stated he believed if this site is the Boards wish, the construction improvement costs need to be further defined. Babcock stated the Freshwater Foundation is willing to reimburse the District approximately 5/7 of capital improvements made and three month of free rent. He noted if this is approximately $20,000, these funds could be used to pay for the other expenses and have an office space at a low cost per square foot. Kitchak stated in theory, those funds could be used at all office spaces by buying the rent down. He used the Lake Minnetonka Motorsports site an example because it would be a turn-key space. Babcock stated if the Board desires not to locate to the Smithtown Crossing space, he believed valid reasons need to be provided by the Board for this decision. Kitchak expressed concern with moving into similar space that is not wide and quite long. He stated the space does not have a lot of natural lighting and has too much space wasted for corridor. He noted he believed there needs to be a reduction in useable square footage at the Smithtown Crossing because of the wasted space for corridors and the need for a handicap accessible restrooms. He concluded he believed the District could find higher quality space. Nybeck stated the Ted Kolander from the Freshwater Foundation coordinated the first visit at the Lake Minnetonka Motorsports site. He added he believed the monthly rent rate could possibly be negotiated with the landlord. He expressed a concern with leasing office space Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting July 22, 1998 Page 15 that is narrow and long because of natural lighting and space layout concerns. He concluded one major difference between the current office space and the space available at Smithtown Crossing is the natural light amenity is significantly less at Smithtown Crossing. Partyka asked if the Smithtown Crossing space is a total interior space? Nybeck stated it is with the only windows in the space at the front. Partyka stated he has problems with an interior space. Nybeck stated the Deephaven Square site has been slightly reduced its costs since the visit of it by Board members this spring. He noted this space was generally agreed by those present to be the number one space visited. He reviewed the scaled net rate and operating expense lease rates proposed by the landlord. Kitchak questioned how the landlord could adjust the operating expenses as initially proposed. He added he believed this is a favorable space for the Board to consider. Babcock questioned whether the funds received back from the Freshwater Center could be used to buy the rent down at this space. Nelson stated no matter what the costs are at Smithtown Crossing, he believed the District could find more adequate space. ' Kitchak reviewed the sketch plan for the Lake Minnetonka Motorsports noting it could be altered to the Districts needs. This included access to elevators and handicap restrooms, office layout, and indoor and outdoor signage. Nelson asked about parking at this site? Nybeck stated the owner has indicated that parking in the parking lot immediately behind the building would be restricted to visitors. Kitchak added he believed that parking of the owners' business equipment could be negotiated. Dahlen asked about the air quality issue? Kitchak stated he has agreed to not run his equipment inside. Partyka added it is possible pressurize the space. Foster expressed concern that the Board not overlook Smithtown Crossing just because of limited natural light. He added he believed it is not compatible for the District to share office space with a Yamaha space. He noted he believed the District should have first floor Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting July 22, 1998 access that is visible to the public. the Smithtown Crossing site. Page 16 He concluded he believed the District should relocate to Kitchak stated he understood some of the concerns expressed by Foster, especially lighting and signage. He noted he believed the Smithtown Crossing space is not functional and that the District's decision should not be based strictly on costs. Partyka concurred with Kitchak in that Smithtown Crossing is not functional space. Dahlen expressed concern with the lighting and layout options at Smithtown Crossing. He added he believed it would be just as bad for the District to have their sign next to a laundromat sign as it would be next to a Yamaha sign. He did agree that accessiblity and the ability to park close to the office is a plus of this space. Babcock stated before locating to the Lake Minnetonka Motorsport site, the air quality needs to be improved. He added he believed parking is a concern. Foster asked about the house in Shorewood? Babcock suggested the Board discuss the Deephave Square site. He noted the moriey received back~ from the Freshwater Foundation could be used to buy the rent down at this site. Foster asked Nybeck if figures were included for build outs? Nybeck stated the landlord would generally be responsible for these costs. He noted this included a handicap restroom, the curb in front, and all lighting and walls. He added the landlord would like the District to purchase the carpet. He concluded he believed there is continued room for negotiation. Kitchak stated he would prefer to tie-down annual operating expenses. Nybeck stated he believed the landlord would provide a gross rate for the space. Babcock stated he had recently met with Don Brown from the Freshwater Center and stated he agreed to go back to him after this meeting. He added if the figures are reasonable for the Deephaven space, it might easy to justify that space. He noted he believed their needs to be justification on why the Smithtown Crossing is not proper space because it appears to be the cheapest. Kitchak stated he believed it is a reduction in quality of space. Babcock asked for review of the Shorewood house site. Nybeck stated the site is approximately 1,058 square feet at a gross rate of $13.50. He Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting July 22, 1998 Page 17 added two improvements would need to be made by the District. They are a handicap ramp and handicap restroom. He noted these improvements would adjust the gross rate to approximately $15.20. He expressed concern that there might not be enough square feet at this site. Kitchak stated there is additional space in the house but there is currently a tenant in it. The Board directed to follow-up on the Lake Minnetonka Motorsports, Deephaven Square, and the Shorewood house sites for the 8/12/98 meeting. This included: · Gross rates for all three sites. · A better estimate on final remodeling costs for all three sites. · To check with the owner at the Shorewood site on whether the District could get first option on the additional space. · To check with the owner at Lake Minnetonka Motorsports regarding parking, ouside use, ventilation, signage, and common arms. Babcock stated he believed the District is in a good negotiating position with the Freshwater Foundation because of conditions agreed to in the Cargill lease. He added he was looking for assistance from Nybeck regarding space requirements for the District office. Foster stated he believed staff should continue to look at other space options. B. Update on vacant Administrative Technician position. · Babcock updated the Board noting that Randall has resigned from this position and accepted a position with the City of Arden Hills. He noted Nybeck has placed an ad in Minneapolis Star Tribune and is actively seeking a replacement. Foster stated that is a loss for the District. He asked what was the attraction of the Arden Hills position'?. Nybeck stated she is educated in planning and career aspirations for a planning position in a c:.ty. He added the deadline for applications are due on 7/31/98 and that interviews would be scheduled shortly after this deadline. C. Additional Business. There was no additional business. 7. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT Nybeck reported on the following: · The lake level as of 7/20/98 was 929.38'. · An Executive Director Newsletter, August Calendar of Events, and District related articles were included in the handout folders for their review. Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting July 22, 1998 e 10. Page 18 · A meeting is scheduled for 3 p.m. at Minnetonka City Hall on 7/30/98 to discuss issues on Grays Bay. OLD BUSINESS There was no old business. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Chair Babcock adjourned the meeting at 10:45 p.m. Douglas Babcock, Chair Eugene A. Partyka, Secretary